Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
← Thu, Jan 8 · the slate
Breakdown · CBJ at VGK

Golden Knights hold off the Blue Jackets

FinalThu, Jan 8
CBJColumbus Blue Jackets3VGKVegas Golden Knights5
The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 3 · VGK 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:58 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

The Golden Knights won 5-3 despite the underlying numbers suggesting a near-even game. Expected goals split 3.75–3.33 in Vegas's favor, but the scoreboard diverged—the Knights outscored their model by 1.25 goals while Columbus underperformed.

A. Schmid (VGK) outperformed his xG model by 1.20 goals. J. Greaves (CBJ) underperformed by 1.25. The split in goaltending efficiency decided the game.

Vegas dominated the chance battle. High-danger opportunities favored the Knights 6–4. The visitors generated 0.074 xG per shot versus Columbus's 0.052—quality over volume. The Knights' rush attack was lethal, converting 5 of 25 chances; Columbus scored twice on 27 rush attempts, a sharp efficiency gap.

The Knights' power play supplied two goals on nine shots, an expected value of 1.74 goals. That created a ceiling Columbus couldn't reach even with a solid offensive night. Vegas also scored two low-danger goals—exactly the kind of mistakes that shift close games.

Brett Howden's wrist shot from the slot in the third period (16:14) was the turning point, the moment Vegas pulled clear.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 8
CBJ
3
VGK
5

Golden Knights hold off the Blue Jackets

Chances 3.3 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
3.33
VGK
3.75
47% of the chances53%

The board read CBJ 3, VGK 5. The chances read CBJ 3.3, VGK 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
+1.3
goals above expected
VGK3.75 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ3.33 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 08:24CBJB. Jenner1–0
  2. P1 10:41CBJK. Johnson2–0
  3. P1 12:20VGKR. Smith2–1
  4. P2 05:19VGKR. SmithPP2–2
  5. P2 13:07VGKJ. Eichel2–3
  6. P2 18:44VGKM. StonePP2–4
  7. P3 14:28CBJK. Marchenko3–4
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
44 shots
3
Final
82 shots
VGK
38 shots
5
CBJ attackVGK attack
CBJ VGK Goal
44
shots · 3 in
38
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJVGK
1 / 4
0.84 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.60 xG
2 / 17
1.84 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.54 xG
0 / 43
0.66 xG
Low
2 / 33
0.61 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 1 of 4, VGK 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. Hart
+2.3
VGK · 0/1
B+
A. Schmid
+1.3
VGK · 22/24
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights hold off the Blue Jackets

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 8–7
  1. 08:24CBJB. Jenner(Z. Werenski, S. Monahan)1–0
  2. 10:41CBJK. Johnson(S. Monahan, B. Jenner)2–0
  3. 12:20VGKR. Smith(B. Hutton, M. Marner)2–1
2ndshots 6–8
  1. 05:19VGKR. Smithpower play(M. Marner, M. Stone)2–2
  2. 13:07VGKJ. Eichel(I. Barbashev, M. Stone)2–3
  3. 18:44VGKM. Stonepower play(T. Hertl, J. Eichel)2–4
3rdshots 11–11
  1. 14:28CBJK. Marchenko(I. Provorov, A. Fantilli)3–4
  2. 16:14VGKB. Howden(K. Kolesar, T. Hertl)3–5

score reads CBJ–VGK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.75
VGK chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.051
VGK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.33Expected goals3.75
VGK 53% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal26
4High-danger chances6
64All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: CBJ 58% · VGK 42%
Faceoffs · VGK won44%off38%neu28%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CBJ1 / 4 · 0.84 xG
VGK1 / 6 · 1.60 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CBJ2 / 17 · 1.84 xG
VGK2 / 12 · 1.54 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CBJ0 / 43 · 0.66 xG
VGK2 / 33 · 0.61 xG

VGK went 2-for-33 from low danger on 0.61 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CBJ
3 G · 3.33 xG · -0.3
VGK
5 G · 3.75 xG · +1.3
0123456

CBJ finished -0.3 against expected, VGK +1.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CBJ
WRIST1/20
SNAP1/10
SLAP0/4
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/20
VGK
WRIST3/20
SNAP1/8
SLAP0/5
TIP IN1/2
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/13
CBJ
VGK
Off the rush
2 G on 27
1.81 xG
5 G on 25
2.47 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.78 xG
0 G on 3
0.88 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 1-for-20, VGK 3-for-20. VGK scored 5 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. Greaves
CBJ · 21/26 · .808
-1.3
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.6+0.6
Medium2/121.5-0.5
Low2/330.6-1.4

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

A. Schmid
VGK · 22/24 · .917
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.8-0.2
Medium2/171.8-0.2
Low0/430.7+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

C. Hart
VGK · 0/1 · .000
+2.3
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.8-0.2
Medium2/171.8-0.2
Low0/430.7+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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CBJ
44 shots
3
Final
82 shots
VGK
38 shots
5
CBJ attackVGK attack
CBJ VGK Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ left, VGK 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. Stone
#61 · R · VGK
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 22:32 on ice · +1
J. Eichel
#9 · C · VGK
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:40 on ice · +1
B. Jenner
#38 · C · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:57 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 8
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:57 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 CBJ 2.4-2.6 VGK game with the Golden Knights at 54% win probability—essentially a flip of the coin. Vegas holds a slim edge in underlying metrics: 54.0% xG% and 52.0% Corsi% to Columbus's 52.0% xG% and 51.0% Corsi%. The gap is marginal enough that neither team can afford to assume superiority; execution will matter far more than raw talent.

Vegas is running cold. Their PDO sits at 0.983 while Columbus sits at 1.003—a full twenty-point gap that suggests the Knights are substantially due for positive regression if their underlying play remains sound. That regression probability matters more than any single score differential in determining this matchup's outcome.

Players to Watch

CBJ

  • Boone Jenner — 0.98 xG/60, 11G 21A, 2 HD goals, 9.6% shooting
  • Mathieu Olivier — 0.89 xG/60, 12G 9A, 1 HD goals, 13.3% shooting

VGK

  • Brandon Saad — 0.91 xG/60, 3G 6A, 1 HD goals, 4.1% shooting
  • Tomas Hertl — 0.88 xG/60, 5G 17A, 1 HD goals, 4.3% shooting

The strategic battleground centers on two conflicts. Jenner drives Columbus's entire offensive system and must be neutralized; Olivier appears due for regression and can't be Columbus's primary offensive source against Vegas. For Vegas, Saad hasn't converted his underlying play into results, while Hertl's assist total masks a deeper scoring drought. Vegas's offensive variance is the real vulnerability.

Defensively, the game hinges on structural gaps. Conor Garland represents Columbus's pronounced weak link in his own zone, while Rasmus Andersson's positioning leaves Vegas exposed to forechecking chaos. Both teams have posted 0% high-danger and 0% rebound-goal rates, suggesting either risk-averse play or unusually clean defensive positioning. Whoever exploits these vulnerabilities first dictates the tempo.

The deciding factor is regression. Vegas's 54% win probability is built on the assumption that their PDO normalizes—that cold shooting ends. If the Knights' underlying play holds and results align, they win outright. Columbus has the metrics to compete and is not outmatched, but closing a PDO gap while defending Garland's weakness is a tougher equation than waiting for variance to swing your way. Give this one to Vegas on regression math.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VGK 54%
54%
VGK
Model favorite
46%
54%
CBJ50VGK

VGK by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CBJ 2.4–2.6 VGK; 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
CBJ← edge
edge →VGK
52.0%54.0%
51.0%52.0%
2.632.52
2.432.11
2.122.12
1.982.10
1.0030.983

VGK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.983) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
CBJ
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
VGK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.983
VGK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page