Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
Breakdown · DAL at CHI

Blackhawks run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

The Blackhawks earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

DAL 3 · CHI 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:45 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 62% control of expected goals at 5v5 (4.96–3.06) vastly outpaced their one-goal winning margin. The underlying metrics suggested a wider victory.

The Blackhawks generated 0.089 expected goals per shot compared to Dallas's 0.057, transforming a shot-attempt disadvantage—they held 46% (21–25 on goal)—into a convincing quality gap. Chicago's nine high-danger chances topped Dallas's five. On the power play, Chicago's dominance showed: two goals on 11 shots (0.98 xG) while Dallas scored twice on nine shots (0.42 xG).

Chicago underperformed their xG by 0.96 goals, yet Dallas's inability to convert high-danger looks was the decisive factor. They went 0-for-5 in danger areas, a rarity. S. Knight was immaculate in net, stopping all five of Dallas's high-danger chances at 100%.

On the rush, both teams struck three goals—Chicago from 22 attempts, Dallas from 26—but Chicago's efficiency elsewhere revealed their edge. Matt Duchene's wrist shot from the slot in the third period proved the turning point, securing the margin that underlying metrics predicted.

J. Oettinger's performance was striking: a 0.810 save percentage, earning +0.96 above expected despite defending low-quality shot volume. Dallas was outshot because their chances lacked the danger of Chicago's looks. The Blackhawks' 4-3 win reflected their fundamental advantage on nearly every meaningful metric.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 1
DAL
3
CHI
4

Blackhawks run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.1 – 5.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
3.06
CHI
4.96
38% of the chances62%

The board read DAL 3, CHI 4. The chances read DAL 3.1, CHI 5.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
−1.0
goals above expected
CHI4.96 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL3.06 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 11:48CHIA. LevshunovPP0–1
  2. P1 14:42DALM. Rantanen1–1
  3. P2 00:13CHIT. TeravainenPP1–2
  4. P2 09:14CHII. Mikheyev1–3
  5. P3 03:58CHII. Mikheyev1–4
  6. P3 16:03DALJ. RobertsonPP2–4
  7. P3 19:42DALM. DuchenePP3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
37 shots
3
Final
76 shots
CHI
39 shots
4
DAL attackCHI attack
DAL CHI Goal
37
shots · 3 in
39
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALCHI
0 / 5
1.01 xG
High danger
1 / 9
3.02 xG
3 / 16
1.64 xG
Medium
3 / 12
1.41 xG
0 / 33
0.41 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.52 xG

The Stars went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Oettinger
+1.0
DAL · 17/21
C
S. Knight
+0.1
CHI · 22/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blackhawks run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 6–6
  1. 11:48CHIA. Levshunovpower play(A. Burakovsky, R. Donato)0–1
  2. 14:42DALM. Rantanen(S. Steel)1–1
2ndshots 10–11
  1. 00:13CHIT. Teravainenpower play(A. Burakovsky, T. Bertuzzi)1–2
  2. 09:14CHII. Mikheyev(M. Grzelcyk)1–3
3rdshots 9–4
  1. 03:58CHII. Mikheyev(R. Donato, C. Murphy)1–4
  2. 16:03DALJ. Robertsonpower play(M. Rantanen, M. Duchene)2–4
  3. 19:42DALM. Duchenepower play(W. Johnston, J. Robertson)3–4

score reads DAL–CHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.96
CHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.016
CHI puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
50.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.06Expected goals4.96
CHI 62% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal21
5High-danger chances9
54All attempts (Corsi)56
Adjusted for score: DAL 54% · CHI 46%
Faceoffs · CHI won33%off47%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DAL0 / 5 · 1.01 xG
CHI1 / 9 · 3.02 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DAL3 / 16 · 1.64 xG
CHI3 / 12 · 1.41 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DAL0 / 33 · 0.41 xG
CHI0 / 35 · 0.52 xG

CHI went 1-for-9 from high danger on 3.02 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DAL
3 G · 3.06 xG · -0.1
CHI
4 G · 4.96 xG · -1.0
0123456

DAL finished -0.1 against expected, CHI -1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DAL
WRIST2/21
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/3
SNAP0/1
BACKHAND1/4
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/17
CHI
WRIST3/26
SLAP0/2
TIP IN0/4
SNAP1/4
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/17
DAL
CHI
Off the rush
3 G on 26
2.57 xG
3 G on 22
1.85 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.26 xG
0 G on 6
1.31 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 2-for-21, CHI 3-for-26. DAL 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
J. Oettinger
DAL · 17/21 · .810
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/93.0+2.0
Medium3/121.4-1.6
Low0/350.5+0.5

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

S. Knight
CHI · 22/25 · .880
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.0+1.0
Medium3/161.6-1.4
Low0/330.4+0.4

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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DAL
37 shots
3
Final
76 shots
CHI
39 shots
4
DAL attackCHI attack
DAL CHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, CHI 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
M. Rantanen
#96 · R · DAL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:23 on ice · +3
J. Robertson
#21 · L · DAL
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:22 on ice · +1
I. Mikheyev
#95 · R · CHI
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 17:39 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 1
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:43 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

The model favors Dallas at 55% win probability, projecting a 2.6–2.3 Stars victory. Dallas dominates at 5v5 expected goals—51.0% to Chicago's 42.0%—a gap large enough to reliably drive scoring. The Stars are hotter too: 6-2-2 over their last 10, compared to the Blackhawks' -14 goal differential in the same stretch.

But Dallas is running hot in a way that won't last. Its PDO of 1.024 sits above the sustainable norm, meaning shooting and save percentages have outpaced shot quality. Chicago's 0.996 sits near baseline. Expect regression to compress the margin.

The rest gap favors Dallas. Chicago arrives on 1 day of rest against Dallas's 4 days. More concretely: S. Knight faces a back-to-back, inviting a backup appearance or a fatigued starter.

Jason Robertson anchors Dallas—0.96 xG per 60, 25 goals, 21 assists, 2 high-danger conversions, and a crisp 12.4% shooting rate. Michael Bunting operates smaller (0.83 xG/60, 8 goals, 14 assists) but carries a sustainable 7.6% clip. Tyler Myers is the defensive weak point.

Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi at 0.85 xG/60: 20 goals, 15 assists, 7 high-danger conversions. Connor Bedard logs similar volume (0.82 xG/60) with 17 goals and 27 assists, though his 11.8% shooting suggests regression risk. Anton Frondell represents the defensive vulnerability.

Both teams carry identical surface stats—0% high-danger goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate. The difference is Dallas's xG edge; once pucks hit iron or pad, that advantage compounds.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 55%
55%
DAL
Model favorite
55%
45%
DAL50CHI

DAL by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.6–2.3 CHI; 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
DAL← edge
edge →CHI
51.0%42.0%
47.0%46.0%
2.362.17
2.292.94
2.071.84
1.682.41
1.0240.996

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DAL
6-2-2
+7 GD · 4d rest
CHI
2-7-1
-14 GD · 1d rest
1.024
DAL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.996
CHI 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%.
  • S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Stars are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 in their last 10).
  • The Blackhawks are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Stars have 3 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
DAL
Expected in goal
J. Oettinger
4 days rest.909 last start
Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI
Expected in goal
S. Knight
back-to-back.905 last start
Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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
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
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
Keep going

Where to next