Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater

Breakdown · STL at VGK

Golden Knights hold off the Blues

FinalSat, Jan 10

STLSt. Louis Blues2 VGKVegas Golden Knights4

The verdict · coin flip

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

STL 2 · VGK 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:15 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

Vegas weathered a statistical stalemate: the Golden Knights outshot the Blues (25–19 on goal) and dominated possession at 57% of shot attempts, yet expected goals split nearly even at 2.73–2.59. The Knights' 4–2 victory masked how tight the underlying metrics played—a two-goal margin that the numbers couldn't justify.

The Knights' precision in high-leverage moments explained the gap. They converted half their high-danger chances (2 on 4), while the Blues matched that volume without a finish. A. Schmid (0.895 SV%, +0.59 vs. expected) cashed in that edge; J. Binnington (0.875 SV%) left St. Louis exposed.

Vegas struck with devastating efficiency on the rush, scoring twice from 22 attempts. The Blues scored twice from 19 rush chances—a superior rate—but couldn't translate possession into high-danger conversions. St. Louis generated eight rebound opportunities and converted none, a symptom of either poor execution or Schmid's sharpness on loose pucks.

Mark Stone's wrist shot at 17:36 of the third period proved the pivot, a strike that shifted momentum permanently Vegas's way. M. Marner (1G, 1A, 18:41) led the Three Stars, while R. Thomas (1G, 1A, 17:13) and C. Parayko (1A) contributed for the Blues—Thomas matching Marner's pace in slightly less ice time.

The broader lesson: Vegas got lucky. Four goals on a 51% expected split means the Knights overperformed their xG by 1.27—a variance gap the Blues never closed.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 10

STL

VGK

Golden Knights hold off the Blues

Chances 2.6 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Golden Knights took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

2.59

VGK

2.73

49% of the chances51%

The board read STL 2, VGK 4. The chances read STL 2.6, VGK 2.7.

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

Luck check

VGK

+1.3

goals above expected

VGK2.73 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

STL2.59 expected · 2 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

P1 00:53STLR. Thomas1–0
P1 07:34VGKM. Marner1–1
P2 01:27VGKJ. Eichel1–2
P2 15:48VGKS. Theodore1–3
P3 03:33STLJ. NeighboursPP2–3
P3 17:36VGKM. StoneEN2–4

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

Where the shots came from

STL

31 shots

Final

65 shots

VGK

34 shots

STL VGK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLVGK

0 / 4

1.03 xG

High danger

2 / 4

0.78 xG

1 / 9

1.07 xG

Medium

2 / 17

1.59 xG

1 / 28

0.49 xG

Low

0 / 31

0.36 xG

The Blues went 0 for 4 from the slot.

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

In the net

A. Schmid

+0.6

VGK · 17/19

J. Binnington

−0.3

STL · 21/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Golden Knights hold off 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 4–12

00:53STLR. Thomas(P. Broberg, C. Parayko)1–0
07:34VGKM. Marner1–1

2ndshots 7–8

01:27VGKJ. Eichel(K. Korczak)1–2
15:48VGKS. Theodore(J. Lauzon, M. Marner)1–3

3rdshots 8–5

03:33STLJ. Neighbourspower play(R. Thomas, J. Kyrou)2–3
17:36VGKM. Stoneempty net2–4

score reads STL–VGK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.73

VGK chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.028

VGK puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

55.9%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.59Expected goals2.73

VGK 51% of the chance quality

19Shots on goal25

4High-danger chances4

41All attempts (Corsi)52

Adjusted for score: STL 47% · VGK 54%

Faceoffs · VGK won56%off53%neu21%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL0 / 4 · 1.03 xG

VGK2 / 4 · 0.78 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL1 / 9 · 1.07 xG

VGK2 / 17 · 1.59 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL1 / 28 · 0.49 xG

VGK0 / 31 · 0.36 xG

VGK went 2-for-4 from high danger on 0.78 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

2 G · 2.59 xG · -0.6

VGK

4 G · 2.73 xG · +1.3

012345

STL finished -0.6 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

STL

WRIST1/21

SLAP0/1

TIP IN0/3

SNAP1/4

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/10

VGK

WRIST4/19

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/4

SNAP0/2

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/18

STL

VGK

Off the rush

2 G on 19

1.32 xG

2 G on 22

1.87 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 8

1.05 xG

1 G on 2

0.23 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 1-for-21, VGK 4-for-19. STL scored 2 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 · 21/24 · .875

-0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/40.8-1.2

Medium2/171.6-0.4

Low0/310.4+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

A. Schmid

VGK · 17/19 · .895

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/41.0+1.0

Medium1/91.1+0.1

Low1/280.5-0.5

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

65 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

31 shots

Final

65 shots

VGK

34 shots

STL VGK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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. Marner

#93 · R · VGK

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:41 on ice · +2

R. Thomas

#18 · C · STL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:13 on ice

C. Parayko

#55 · D · STL

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 26:43 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 10

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:13 AMEdited 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 Vegas—56% win probability on a projected 2.2-2.6 scoreline. This isn't contrarian; it rests on territorial advantage. The Golden Knights control 54.0% of expected goals at 5v5 against St. Louis's 49.0%, and drive Corsi to 52.0% versus 48.0%. They will own the ice.

St. Louis enters diminished. The Blues sit -6 in goal differential over their last 10 games, a concrete deterioration. Yet Vegas's edge runs deeper than possession: the Knights are at 0.983 PDO, running cold and primed for positive variance, while St. Louis sits at 1.000. This is a team playing worse hockey than its underlying quality suggests, and the gap typically closes.

Vegas's advantage centers on forward depth. Tomas Hertl generates 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes with 5 goals and 17 assists on 4.3% shooting. Brandon Saad would provide secondary volume at 0.91 xG/60, but he is marked inactive—stripping depth from the attack. That loss should modestly temper their possession edge.

St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud, who carries 0.86 xG/60 with 15 goals and 22 assists on 11.9% shooting. Dylan Holloway sits at 0.82 xG/60 with 13 goals and 24 assists on 10.8% shooting. Both forwards operate at elevated conversion, a sign they are running hot.

Goaltending adds risk: A. Schmid is on a back-to-back, raising odds of a backup start or a fatigued starter. Vegas's territorial advantage should exploit any goaltending vulnerability.

Vegas owns the underlying play and is mathematically due for positive variance. St. Louis plays below talent and runs hot in conversion. The Knights' 56% lean prices a team due to regress toward true strength.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VGK 56%

56%

VGK

Model favorite

44%

56%

STL50VGK

VGK by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.2–2.6 VGK; 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

STL← edge

edge →VGK

49.0%54.0%

48.0%52.0%

2.342.52

2.402.11

2.002.12

2.122.10

1.0000.983

VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.983) 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

-6 GD · 2d rest

VGK

3-5-2

-4 GD · 1d rest

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.983

VGK 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.
A. Schmid is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Blues are underwater at -6 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

STL

Expected in goal

J. Binnington

2 days rest.800 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

VGK

Expected in goal

A. Schmid

back-to-back.917 last start

Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 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

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

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