Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
← Sat, Dec 27 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at DAL

Blackhawks steal one from the Stars against the run of play

Final / OTSat, Dec 27
CHIChicago Blackhawks4DALDallas Stars3
The verdict · stolen

The Blackhawks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.72–5.96 and won anyway.

CHI 4 · DAL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:58 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Chicago's 4-3 shootout victory masks a one-sided underlying game: Dallas controlled 62% of expected goals (5.96–3.72). The Blackhawks won because A. Soderblom saved 2.96 goals above expected and because Nick Lardis finished the shootout crisply. This was a robbery.

The Stars' dominance extended throughout regulation. They generated 13 high-danger chances to Chicago's 8—a decisive edge in the most dangerous areas. Dallas also held 48% of shot attempts, with 31 landing on goal against Chicago's 33.

Where the Blackhawks found efficiency: they converted 3 of 26 rush opportunities, ruthless by volume. Dallas crashed the net into 7 rebound chances but converted only 2. Chicago generated 4 rebound opportunities and converted none—yet still won.

The goaltending split explains everything. A. Soderblom stopped everything in sight, finishing 28-for-31 (0.903 SV%) with a +2.96 save differential that crushed Dallas's advantage. J. Oettinger, performing well at 30-for-33 (0.909 SV%), still couldn't overcome the gulf in expected goals.

Dallas underperformed its xG by 3.0, a stunning waste of dominance. The Stars generated far higher-quality looks—0.098 xG per shot versus Chicago's 0.065—yet couldn't find the net. W. Johnston's 3 assists in 21:18 and M. Rantanen's 1 goal and 2 assists in 21:07 drove the offense, but volume alone doesn't guarantee results.

Chicago's defense proved tight enough to steal this. A. Vlasic contributed 2 assists in 25:45, anchoring the effort that held Dallas despite being thoroughly outplayed in underlying metrics.

The shootout brought the heist to its conclusion—Nick Lardis's wrist shot from the slot secured it.

CHI 4 – DAL 3 (SO)

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 27
CHI
4
DAL
3

Blackhawks steal one from the Stars against the run of play

Chances 3.7 – 6.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
3.72
DAL
5.96
39% of the chances62%

The board read CHI 4, DAL 3. The chances read CHI 3.7, DAL 6.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
+0.3
goals above expected
CHI3.72 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL5.96 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars left 3.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:20CHIT. Bertuzzi1–0
  2. P1 11:31DALN. Lundkvist1–1
  3. P2 10:37CHIJ. Dickinson2–1
  4. P2 11:32DALJ. Hryckowian2–2
  5. P3 11:18DALM. Rantanen2–3
  6. P3 12:25CHIT. Bertuzzi3–3
  7. SO 00:00CHIR. DonatoPP3–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
45 shots
5
Final
94 shots
DAL
49 shots
4
CHI attackDAL attack
CHI DAL Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

45
shots · 5 in
49
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIDAL
2 / 8
1.84 xG
High danger
2 / 13
3.59 xG
0 / 12
1.46 xG
Medium
0 / 19
2.06 xG
1 / 37
0.43 xG
Low
1 / 29
0.31 xG

The Blackhawks buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Soderblom
+3.0
CHI · 28/31
B
J. Oettinger
+0.7
DAL · 30/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blackhawks steal one from the Stars against the run of play

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 11–11
  1. 03:20CHIT. Bertuzzi(A. Vlasic, L. Slaggert)1–0
  2. 11:31DALN. Lundkvist(M. Rantanen, W. Johnston)1–1
2ndshots 9–5
  1. 10:37CHIJ. Dickinson(A. Levshunov)2–1
  2. 11:32DALJ. Hryckowian(W. Johnston, M. Rantanen)2–2
3rdshots 11–13
  1. 11:18DALM. Rantanen(W. Johnston, S. Steel)2–3
  2. 12:25CHIT. Bertuzzi(C. Murphy, A. Vlasic)3–3
OTshots 2–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00CHIR. Donatopower play3–3
    2. 00:00DALM. Duchenepower play3–3
    3. 00:00CHIN. Lardispower play3–3

    score reads CHI–DAL

    Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
    Process vs result

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.72
    CHI chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.004
    CHI puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    48.3%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.72Expected goals5.96
    DAL 62% of the chance quality
    33Shots on goal31
    8High-danger chances13
    57All attempts (Corsi)61
    Adjusted for score: CHI 48% · DAL 52%
    Faceoffs · DAL won59%off50%neu64%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI2 / 8 · 1.84 xG
    DAL2 / 13 · 3.59 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI0 / 12 · 1.46 xG
    DAL0 / 19 · 2.06 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI1 / 37 · 0.43 xG
    DAL1 / 29 · 0.31 xG

    DAL went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.06 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.

    Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
    The luck layer

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    4 G · 3.72 xG · +0.3
    DAL
    3 G · 5.96 xG · -3.0
    01234567

    CHI finished +0.3 against expected, DAL -3.0.

    Source · Backcheck xG model
    Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
    What they shot — and what went in

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    SNAP3/21
    WRIST0/9
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/16
    DAL
    SNAP2/30
    WRIST0/5
    TIP IN0/3
    SLAP1/1
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/4
    OTHER0/15
    CHI
    DAL
    Off the rush
    3 G on 26
    2.67 xG
    0 G on 32
    4.43 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.76 xG
    2 G on 7
    1.46 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: CHI went 3-for-21, DAL 2-for-30. CHI scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

    Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
    New to these numbers?

    Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

    The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

    xG
    Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
    HD
    High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
    Corsi
    Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
    Adj.
    Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
    GSAx
    Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
    PDO
    Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
    Shot by shot

    In the net

    Graded on goals saved above expected
    A. Soderblom
    CHI · 28/31 · .903
    +3.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/133.6+1.6
    Medium0/192.1+2.1
    Low1/290.3-0.7

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    J. Oettinger
    DAL · 30/33 · .909
    +0.7
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/81.8-0.2
    Medium0/121.5+1.5
    Low1/370.4-0.6

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    94 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    45 shots
    5
    Final
    94 shots
    DAL
    49 shots
    4
    CHI attackDAL attack
    CHI DAL Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, DAL right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

    Ranked from the box score

    Three stars

    Points first
    Three stars · computed, not voted
    W. Johnston
    #53 · C · DAL
    0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 21:18 on ice · +2
    M. Rantanen
    #96 · R · DAL
    1 G · 2 A · 8 SOG · 21:07 on ice · +2
    A. Vlasic
    #72 · D · CHI
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 25:45 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Dec 27
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:05 PMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

    Dallas is favored at 60% win probability, with the model projecting a 2.2-2.8 result. The case for the Stars rests on cleaner underlying metrics and recent form, though their hot finish hides a regression risk.

    The Stars have won seven of their last ten games. Chicago has moved in the opposite direction, posting a minus-21 goal differential over the same span. That momentum gap makes Dallas the model's clear lean.

    The underlying numbers justify the tilt. Dallas controls 51.0% of expected goals at 5v5 to Chicago's 42.0%, a decisive edge in shot quality. The Stars' 47.0% Corsi sits just above Chicago's 46.0%—a near-tie in possession that masks Dallas's underlying dominance. Chicago's 42.0% xG% signals they're being out-chanced repeatedly, a warning sign the recent skid could deepen.

    Here's the wrinkle: Dallas is running a PDO of 1.024, meaning pucks are bouncing the Stars' way at a rate that won't persist. Chicago's 0.996 PDO suggests the opposite. The model accounts for this regression, which is why the spread remains modest despite Dallas's advantage.

    Tyler Bertuzzi leads Chicago's attack with 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes and a 20-goal, 15-assist season. His 18.0% shooting rate suggests he's finding quality chances. Connor Bedard trails at 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals and 27 assists; his 11.8% shot conversion sits at normal levels, indicating steady production rather than lucky variance. Bedard's playmaking keeps Chicago's offense afloat.

    Dallas counters with Jason Robertson, who registers 0.96 xG/60—the highest opportunity rate in this matchup. He's converted to 25 goals and 21 assists on a 12.4% shooting rate. Michael Bunting provides secondary scoring at 0.83 xG/60 with 8 goals and 14 assists, lean output that still creates danger.

    The defensive weak links are instructive. Anton Frondell's unreliability in Chicago's system creates openings. Tyler Myers carries similar liability for Dallas. Both teams show 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound goal rates, suggesting goaltending luck may tilt the margin.

    The Stars should win. The model says 60%. Regression looms for Dallas, but Chicago's form is too poor to capitalize on it.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DAL 60%
    59%
    DAL
    Model favorite
    41%
    59%
    CHI50DAL

    DAL by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.2–2.8 DAL; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

    Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
    Season rates · 5v5

    Tale of the tape

    NHL stats API · our xG
    CHI← edge
    edge →DAL
    42.0%51.0%
    46.0%47.0%
    2.172.36
    2.942.29
    1.842.07
    2.411.68
    0.9961.024

    DAL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CHI
    2-8-0
    -21 GD · 3d rest
    DAL
    7-2-1
    +11 GD · 4d rest
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.024
    DAL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Stars are the hotter team by points pace (7-2-1 in their last 10).
    • The Blackhawks are underwater at -21 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CHI
    Expected in goal
    S. Knight
    3 days rest.920 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    DAL
    Expected in goal
    C. DeSmith
    4 days rest.840 last start
    Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    CHI
    Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
    0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
    Connor Bedard17G 27A
    0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh
    DAL
    Jason Robertson25G 21A
    0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
    Michael Bunting8G 14A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page