Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
← Fri, Jan 2 · the slate
Breakdown · VGK at STL

Blues hold off the Golden Knights

FinalFri, Jan 2
VGKVegas Golden Knights3STLSt. Louis Blues4
The verdict · earned

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

VGK 3 · STL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:48 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

St. Louis won the game they should have won. Despite being out-shot 25–19, the Blues controlled 57% of 5v5 expected goals (3.35–2.52). The stat that explains this: St. Louis generated 0.071 expected goals per shot while Vegas managed 0.054. Shot volume favored the Knights; shot quality favored the Blues.

Vegas excelled in transition, converting 3 of 20 rush attempts. In the high-danger area, the Knights were efficient but not prolific: 2 for 5 (40%). C. Hart (15/19 saves, 0.789 SV%) played below expectation (−0.65). J. Hofer (22/25 saves, 0.880 SV%) made timely saves when it mattered.

Brayden Schenn's third-period deflection at 18:27 broke the game open. The difference came down to execution at the margins: St. Louis converted 2 of 4 rebound opportunities, while Vegas converted zero despite creating four. Both teams generated 5 high-danger chances, but St. Louis's depth and sustained pressure wore down the Knights' system.

The three stars reflected the Blues' balanced attack:

  • #89 P. Buchnevich (STL) — 2A in 15:04
  • #13 A. Toropchenko (STL) — 1G, 1A in 13:28
  • #71 M. Joseph (STL) — 2A in 11:31
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 2
VGK
3
STL
4

Blues hold off the Golden Knights

Chances 2.5 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VGK
2.52
STL
3.35
43% of the chances57%

The board read VGK 3, STL 4. The chances read VGK 2.5, STL 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
+0.7
goals above expected
STL3.35 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VGK2.52 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 10:12VGKK. Kolesar1–0
  2. P1 10:39STLA. Toropchenko1–1
  3. P2 05:39STLJ. Faulk1–2
  4. P2 06:37STLO. Sundqvist1–3
  5. P2 09:10VGKM. Stone2–3
  6. P3 08:21VGKP. Dorofeyev3–3
  7. P3 18:27STLB. Schenn3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VGK
36 shots
3
Final
69 shots
STL
33 shots
4
VGK attackSTL attack
VGK STL Goal
36
shots · 3 in
33
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VGKSTL
2 / 5
1.22 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.83 xG
0 / 6
0.67 xG
Medium
2 / 11
1.15 xG
1 / 36
0.63 xG
Low
1 / 31
0.37 xG

High-danger looks: VGK 2 of 5, STL 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
J. Hofer
−0.5
STL · 22/25
D
C. Hart
−0.7
VGK · 15/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues hold off the Golden Knights

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 6–4
  1. 10:12VGKK. Kolesar(C. Sissons, K. Korczak)1–0
  2. 10:39STLA. Toropchenko(M. Joseph, O. Sundqvist)1–1
2ndshots 14–7
  1. 05:39STLJ. Faulk(P. Buchnevich, T. Tucker)1–2
  2. 06:37STLO. Sundqvist(A. Toropchenko, M. Joseph)1–3
  3. 09:10VGKM. Stone(B. Howden)2–3
3rdshots 5–8
  1. 08:21VGKP. Dorofeyev(B. Bowman)3–3
  2. 18:27STLB. Schenn(J. Snuggerud, P. Buchnevich)3–4

score reads VGK–STL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.35
STL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.021
STL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
50.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.52Expected goals3.35
STL 57% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal19
5High-danger chances5
47All attempts (Corsi)47
Adjusted for score: VGK 52% · STL 48%
Faceoffs · STL won41%off63%neu67%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VGK2 / 5 · 1.22 xG
STL1 / 5 · 1.83 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VGK0 / 6 · 0.67 xG
STL2 / 11 · 1.15 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VGK1 / 36 · 0.63 xG
STL1 / 31 · 0.37 xG

STL went 2-for-11 from medium danger on 1.15 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VGK
3 G · 2.52 xG · +0.5
STL
4 G · 3.35 xG · +0.7
012345

VGK finished +0.5 against expected, STL +0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VGK
WRIST3/21
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/11
STL
WRIST2/20
SNAP1/5
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED1/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/14
VGK
STL
Off the rush
3 G on 20
1.67 xG
1 G on 18
1.65 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.69 xG
2 G on 4
0.46 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 3-for-21, STL 2-for-20. VGK 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
C. Hart
VGK · 15/19 · .789
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.8+0.8
Medium2/111.1-0.8
Low1/310.4-0.6

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

J. Hofer
STL · 22/25 · .880
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.2-0.8
Medium0/60.7+0.7
Low1/360.6-0.4

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

69 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VGK
36 shots
3
Final
69 shots
STL
33 shots
4
VGK attackSTL attack
VGK STL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK left, STL 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
P. Buchnevich
#89 · L · STL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:04 on ice
A. Toropchenko
#13 · R · STL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 13:28 on ice · +2
M. Joseph
#71 · R · STL
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 11:31 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Jan 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:47 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

Vegas gets 52% to win in the model's projection, with a 2.5–2.3 score line barely better than a pick'em. This is about as close as modern hockey gets.

The Golden Knights own the underlying play: 54.0% expected goals at 5v5, 52.0% Corsi, territorial dominance on both measures. But Vegas is running cold at the team level — its 0.983 PDO signals luck dragging and due for positive regression. The Blues, meanwhile, are underwater over their last ten at -12 goal differential, a steeper hole than Vegas's -5, but they've maintained a serviceable 49.0% xG rate that keeps them operational.

Goaltending becomes the hinge: J. Binnington takes this matchup on a back-to-back. Watch whether the Blues play their backup or ride a fatigued starter.

Tomas Hertl leads Vegas's offensive charge at 0.88 xG/60 with 5 goals and 17 assists; his 4.3% shooting rate runs clean, so his production holds. Brandon Saad, marked inactive for this game, leaves Vegas's second line thinner than the preseason suggested.

St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud at 0.86 xG/60 and a startling 11.9% shooting rate — 15 goals and 22 assists mark him as one of the season's sharpest scorers. Dylan Holloway operates a similar line: 0.82 xG/60 with a 10.8% shooting clip and 13 goals on 24 assists.

Vegas's core problem is structural: it generates more chances but converts fewer. St. Louis doesn't create as much but nets what it does. When superior underlying play meets PDO regression, the model sees a toss-up. The game could flatten either direction.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VGK 52%
52%
VGK
Model favorite
52%
48%
VGK50STL

VGK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VGK 2.5–2.3 STL; 19% 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
VGK← edge
edge →STL
54.0%49.0%
52.0%48.0%
2.522.34
2.112.40
2.122.00
2.102.12
0.9831.000

VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 1.000) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
VGK
3-4-3
-5 GD · 2d rest
STL
4-5-1
-12 GD · 1d rest
0.983
VGK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.000
STL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Binnington is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Blues are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Golden Knights are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
VGK
Expected in goal
A. Schmid
2 days rest.789 last start
Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

STL
Expected in goal
J. Binnington
back-to-back.860 last start
Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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
VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh
STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page