Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
Breakdown · EDM at CHI

C. Ingram stands tall as the Oilers edge the Blackhawks

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 4 · CHI 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:30 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

C. Ingram (EDM) stole the show: a 0.967 save percentage and 2.93 goals saved above expected. The Oilers won 4-1, but that scoreline masks what nearly happened. The Blackhawks generated 3.93 expected goals while converting just one—leaving 2.93 goals unrealized.

The Oilers controlled 5v5 play at 58% expected goals (5.44 to 3.93). Their 37-30 shot-attempt advantage was substantial, but the gap that mattered was quality: 0.086 xG per shot versus Chicago's 0.062. That differential compounds across a full game.

The Blackhawks generated genuine chances. They had six high-danger opportunities (combined 16 between the teams), but couldn't finish: 0-for-6 on those looks. That conversion rate won't happen often. S. Knight (CHI) played well with a 0.917 save percentage—2.44 goals better than expected—but faced lower-quality volume overall.

Leon Draisaitl's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 19:15) proved the turning point. The Oilers spread scoring across the lineup: E. Bouchard (2G, 1A in 24:31), Z. Hyman (1G, 1A in 19:28), and C. McDavid (2A in 21:18). The Blackhawks created four rebound opportunities and converted one; the Oilers created four and converted zero. None of it mattered once Ingram locked in—100% save percentage on six high-danger shots. That performance sealed the gap.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 12
EDM
4
CHI
1

C. Ingram stands tall as the Oilers edge the Blackhawks

Chances 5.4 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
5.44
CHI
3.93
58% of the chances42%

The board read EDM 4, CHI 1. The chances read EDM 5.4, CHI 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
−1.4
goals above expected
EDM5.44 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI3.93 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 2.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 14:41EDMZ. Hyman1–0
  2. P2 00:16EDME. Bouchard2–0
  3. P3 14:46CHIT. Bertuzzi2–1
  4. P3 19:07EDME. BouchardEN3–1
  5. P3 19:15EDML. Draisaitl4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
54 shots
4
Final
100 shots
CHI
46 shots
1
EDM attackCHI attack
EDM CHI Goal
54
shots · 4 in
46
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMCHI
1 / 10
2.54 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.42 xG
3 / 19
2.13 xG
Medium
1 / 18
1.85 xG
0 / 34
0.77 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.66 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
C. Ingram
+2.9
EDM · 29/30
A
S. Knight
+2.4
CHI · 33/36
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

C. Ingram stands tall as the Oilers edge the Blackhawks

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 10–5
  1. 14:41EDMZ. Hyman(E. Bouchard, C. McDavid)1–0
2ndshots 16–12
  1. 00:16EDME. Bouchard(R. Nugent-Hopkins, C. McDavid)2–0
3rdshots 11–13
  1. 14:46CHIT. Bertuzzi(W. Kaiser)2–1
  2. 19:07EDME. Bouchardempty net(Z. Hyman)3–1
  3. 19:15EDML. Draisaitl4–1

score reads EDM–CHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.44
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.4
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.048
EDM 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

5.44Expected goals3.93
EDM 58% of the chance quality
37Shots on goal30
10High-danger chances6
63All attempts (Corsi)63
Adjusted for score: EDM 44% · CHI 56%
Faceoffs · CHI won53%off63%neu43%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM1 / 10 · 2.54 xG
CHI0 / 6 · 1.42 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM3 / 19 · 2.13 xG
CHI1 / 18 · 1.85 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM0 / 34 · 0.77 xG
CHI0 / 39 · 0.66 xG

EDM went 1-for-10 from high danger on 2.54 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
4 G · 5.44 xG · -1.4
CHI
1 G · 3.93 xG · -2.9
0123456

EDM finished -1.4 against expected, CHI -2.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
WRIST2/32
SNAP1/8
SLAP0/5
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/9
CHI
WRIST1/26
SNAP0/7
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/17
EDM
CHI
Off the rush
1 G on 37
3.66 xG
0 G on 32
2.65 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.69 xG
1 G on 4
0.63 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 2-for-32, CHI 1-for-26.

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. Ingram
EDM · 29/30 · .967
+2.9
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.4+1.4
Medium1/181.9+0.8
Low0/390.7+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

S. Knight
CHI · 33/36 · .917
+2.4
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/102.5+1.5
Medium3/192.1-0.9
Low0/340.8+0.8

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

100 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
EDM
54 shots
4
Final
100 shots
CHI
46 shots
1
EDM attackCHI attack
EDM CHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 24:31 on ice · +3
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:18 on ice · +3
Z. Hyman
#18 · L · EDM
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:28 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Jan 12
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:15 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 Edmonton decisively, projecting a 2.8–2.4 win at 56% confidence. The case rests on superior underlying play: the Oilers generate 52.0% of expected goals at even strength while allowing 42.0%, and they control 50.0% of shot attempts against Chicago's 46.0%. That territorial advantage translates to sustained pressure.

The critical wrinkle: Edmonton's PDO sits at 0.982, meaning the Oilers are converting at rates colder than league average, while Chicago runs at 0.996. Regression favors Edmonton. Hot goaltending can mask weak possession; Edmonton is the opposite. Given more time and league-average luck, the Oilers' margin widens.

Goaltending adds uncertainty: both D. Commesso and C. Ingram are on back-to-backs, raising questions about fatigue or backup usage. Either team could face a tired starter or see a third-stringer take the crease.

On the ice, Zach Hyman anchors Edmonton's attack at 1.23 expected goals per 60, with 14 goals and 13 assists—though only 1 has come as a high-danger chance, a sign he's succeeding through positioning and shot selection rather than volume of prime opportunities. His 13.0% shooting rate, slightly above league average, compounds the effect. Connor McDavid operates at a lower expected-goal rate of 0.92 per 60 but carries 25 goals and 33 assists, with 5 high-danger goals reflecting clutch finishing.

Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi at 0.85 expected goals per 60, combining 20 goals and 15 assists, though 7 of those goals come as high-danger chances—suggesting elite conversion on his looks. His 18.0% shooting rate is among the league's best. Connor Bedard contributes 0.82 expected goals per 60 across 17 goals and 27 assists, with 5 high-danger goals, his 11.8% shooting rate reflecting near-average efficiency on limited prime chances.

The Oilers' edge in shot volume and expected goals, paired with room for positive PDO regression, points to a decisive result. Edmonton should win.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 56%
56%
EDM
Model favorite
56%
44%
EDM50CHI

EDM by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score EDM 2.8–2.4 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
EDM← edge
edge →CHI
52.0%42.0%
50.0%46.0%
2.642.17
2.472.94
2.131.84
2.292.41
0.9820.996

EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 0.996) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
EDM
5-4-1
+0 GD · 1d rest
CHI
6-3-1
+0 GD · 1d rest
0.982
EDM 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 Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • D. Commesso is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • C. Ingram is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
EDM
Expected in goal
C. Ingram
back-to-back.900 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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.

CHI
Expected in goal
D. Commesso
back-to-back1.000 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
EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% 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