Breakdown · STL at CHI

Blackhawks pull away from the Blues

FinalWed, Jan 7

STLSt. Louis Blues3 CHIChicago Blackhawks7

The verdict · coin flip

The Blackhawks won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

STL 3 · CHI 7

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:21 AMxG: 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

Expected goals predicted a close game; the final score did not. Chicago's 7-3 victory over St. Louis masked underlying metrics that suggested a much tighter contest — expected goals finished 3.90–3.94, essentially even, yet the Blackhawks' 7 goals soundly beat the Blues' 3.

The underlying advantage belonged to Chicago: 54% of shot attempts (35–30), plus 7 high-danger chances to St. Louis' 6. But the gap between forecast and result was vast. Chicago overperformed its expected goals by 3.10; St. Louis underperformed by 0.94.

Goaltending explained the divergence. S. Knight (CHI) saved 27 of 30 at 0.900, exceeding expectations by 0.94 goals. J. Binnington (STL) allowed 28 of 35 at 0.800, falling 3.10 short—a wall on high-danger looks where he faced 7 and stopped all 7.

The power play delivered the decisive edge: Chicago scored 3 on 13 attempts (0.84 expected goals), exploiting special teams where 5-on-5 play suggested parity.

Nathan Walker's batted-in shot from the doorstep (third period, 13:19) marked the turning point—Chicago executed from there while St. Louis failed to capitalize on its chances.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 7

STL

CHI

Blackhawks pull away from the Blues

Chances 3.9 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Blackhawks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

3.94

CHI

3.90

50% of the chances50%

The board read STL 3, CHI 7. The chances read STL 3.9, CHI 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

CHI

+3.1

goals above expected

CHI3.90 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

STL3.94 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blackhawks scored 3.1 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 00:27STLT. Tucker1–0
P1 09:26CHIN. LardisPP1–1
P2 07:41CHIO. MoorePP1–2
P2 08:22STLO. Stenberg2–2
P2 08:57CHIC. Murphy2–3
P2 12:27CHIL. Slaggert2–4
P2 17:24CHIJ. Dickinson2–5

+3 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

STL

46 shots

Final

93 shots

CHI

47 shots

STL CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 7 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLCHI

2 / 6

1.31 xG

High danger

0 / 7

1.50 xG

1 / 19

2.13 xG

Medium

6 / 18

1.91 xG

0 / 39

0.50 xG

Low

1 / 31

0.49 xG

High-danger looks: STL 2 of 6, CHI 0 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

B+

S. Knight

+0.9

CHI · 27/30

J. Binnington

−3.1

STL · 28/35

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blackhawks pull away from the Blues

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 13–9

00:27STLT. Tucker(B. Schenn)1–0
09:26CHIN. Lardispower play(O. Moore, M. Grzelcyk)1–1

2ndshots 8–17

07:41CHIO. Moorepower play(M. Grzelcyk, N. Foligno)1–2
08:22STLO. Stenberg2–2
08:57CHIC. Murphy2–3
12:27CHIL. Slaggert(C. Dach, C. Murphy)2–4
17:24CHIJ. Dickinson(L. Crevier)2–5

3rdshots 9–9

05:11CHIA. Burakovskypower play(R. Greene, T. Teravainen)2–6
12:56CHIL. Crevier(L. Slaggert, A. Vlasic)2–7
13:19STLN. Walker(A. Toropchenko, P. Broberg)3–7

score reads STL–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.90

CHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

+3.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.078

CHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

46.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.94Expected goals3.90

STL 50% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal35

6High-danger chances7

64All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: STL 56% · CHI 44%

Faceoffs · CHI won52%off61%neu67%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL2 / 6 · 1.31 xG

CHI0 / 7 · 1.50 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL1 / 19 · 2.13 xG

CHI6 / 18 · 1.91 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL0 / 39 · 0.50 xG

CHI1 / 31 · 0.49 xG

CHI went 6-for-18 from medium danger on 1.91 expected goals — 4.1 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

3 G · 3.94 xG · -0.9

CHI

7 G · 3.90 xG · +3.1

012345678

STL finished -0.9 against expected, CHI +3.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

WRIST0/25

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/4

SNAP2/7

TIP IN0/0

DEFLECTED0/2

WRAP AROUND0/2

BAT1/1

OTHER0/18

CHI

WRIST2/29

SLAP2/6

BACKHAND1/5

SNAP0/1

TIP IN2/5

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/9

STL

CHI

Off the rush

3 G on 30

2.98 xG

6 G on 24

2.25 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.20 xG

0 G on 7

1.16 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-25, CHI 2-for-29. CHI scored 6 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. Binnington

STL · 28/35 · .800

-3.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/71.5+1.5

Medium6/181.9-4.1

Low1/310.5-0.5

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 · 27/30 · .900

+0.9

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/61.3-0.7

Medium1/192.1+1.1

Low0/390.5+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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

46 shots

Final

93 shots

CHI

47 shots

STL CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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

C. Murphy

#5 · D · CHI

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:08 on ice · +2

L. Crevier

#46 · D · CHI

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:35 on ice · +1

M. Grzelcyk

#48 · D · CHI

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:59 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Jan 7

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:40 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 projects a 2.6–2.4 goal game with St. Louis at 54% win probability—essentially a pick'em. This matchup offers no clear read beyond the data's inherent uncertainty.

Both teams arrive wounded. Chicago sits at -9 goal differential over its last 10 games; St. Louis at -5. Neither side has found recent form, which narrows the gap between what the metrics suggest and what will actually happen on the ice.

The underlying play belongs to St. Louis. The Blues own 49.0% expected goals share at 5v5 compared to Chicago's 42.0%, and their 48.0% Corsi% exceeds the Blackhawks' 46.0%. Both metrics confirm the same judgment: St. Louis dominates possession and shot quality. PDO tells no story—1.000 for the Blues versus 0.996 for Chicago indicates neither team is significantly over- or under-performing its true talent.

Rest tilts the other way. Chicago arrives on 2 days' rest while St. Louis has 4 days to recover and prepare. That edge matters when both rosters are running on fumes.

Players to Watch

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud — 0.86 xG/60, 15G, 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
Dylan Holloway — 0.82 xG/60, 13G, 24A, 1 HD goal, 10.8% shooting

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi — 0.85 xG/60, 20G, 15A, 7 HD goals, 18.0% shooting
Connor Bedard — 0.82 xG/60, 17G, 27A, 5 HD goals, 11.8% shooting

The matchup will be decided by execution at the individual level. Bertuzzi's efficiency—18.0% shooting rate with 7 high-danger goals—suggests a forward getting to dangerous areas and finishing at an elite rate. Bedard's 5 high-danger chances confirm Chicago has legitimate finishing talent, even if the overall shooting percentage trails. St. Louis counters with volume; Snuggerud and Holloway generate consistent looks without the conversion rates.

St. Louis' structural advantage in shot quality and possession should compound over 60 minutes. But Chicago's rest advantage could crystallize into a third-period surge that tips a coin flip. Process and circumstance point in opposite directions, which is exactly what makes this genuine.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 54%

54%

STL

Model favorite

54%

46%

STL50CHI

STL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.6–2.4 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

STL← edge

edge →CHI

49.0%42.0%

48.0%46.0%

2.342.17

2.402.94

2.001.84

2.122.41

1.0000.996

STL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.996) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

STL

5-4-1

-5 GD · 4d rest

CHI

4-5-1

-9 GD · 2d rest

1.000

STL 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 Blues own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.

Things to watch

The Blues own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Blackhawks are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
The Blues are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
The Blues have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

STL

Expected in goal

J. Binnington

4 days rest1.000 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI

Expected in goal

A. Soderblom

2 days rest.867 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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

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

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

Back to the front page