Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Sun, Jan 18 · the slate
Breakdown · STL at EDM

Oilers shut out the Blues, 5-0

FinalSun, Jan 18
STLSt. Louis Blues0EDMEdmonton Oilers5
The verdict · coin flip

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

STL 0 · EDM 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:28 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 said this was a fair fight — the Oilers generated just 3.53 to the Blues' 3.52. The scoreline said otherwise: a 5-0 shutout is the opposite of even. The gap was goaltending, and it was enormous.

C. Ingram (EDM) stopped 3.5 goals above what his underlying metrics predicted. J. Binnington (STL) gave up 1.5 more than expected. That five-goal swing between the pipes explains the entire margin.

The Oilers generated better quality chances. Their expected goal per shot was 0.080 to St. Louis's 0.053. They registered six high-danger chances to the Blues' five and converted the closer ones. St. Louis created five high-danger chances and converted zero, a liability that rarely survives a full season.

The Oilers also dominated where it matters most. C. Ingram faced five high-danger shots and stopped all five. V. Podkolzin's early snap shot from the doorstep (P3, 01:19) set the tone.

Shot volume was nearly identical — the Oilers held 51% of shot attempts and 28 shots to St. Louis's 27. But shooting chances aren't goals. The Oilers were lethal off the rush, converting four times on 26 chances. The Blues couldn't find the net anywhere.

Z. Hyman led the way with two goals and an assist in 17:59. C. McDavid contributed two assists across 22:42 of ice time. M. Ekholm added two assists in 19:02.

St. Louis underperformed their xG by 3.5 goals — they had the chances, just not the execution or goaltending to salvage it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 18
STL
0
EDM
5

Oilers shut out the Blues, 5-0

Chances 3.5 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Oilers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
3.52
EDM
3.53
50% of the chances50%

The board read STL 0, EDM 5. The chances read STL 3.5, EDM 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+1.5
goals above expected
EDM3.53 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
STL3.52 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blues left 3.5 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 05:55EDMR. Nugent-HopkinsPP0–1
  2. P1 11:52EDMA. Mangiapane0–2
  3. P1 18:43EDMZ. Hyman0–3
  4. P2 10:52EDMZ. Hyman0–4
  5. P3 01:19EDMV. Podkolzin0–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
44 shots
0
Final
82 shots
EDM
38 shots
5
STL attackEDM attack
STL EDM Goal
44
shots · 0 in
38
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLEDM
0 / 5
1.23 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.27 xG
0 / 16
1.64 xG
Medium
3 / 17
1.82 xG
0 / 45
0.65 xG
Low
1 / 21
0.44 xG

The Blues went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
C. Ingram
+3.5
EDM · 27/27
D-
J. Binnington
−1.5
STL · 23/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers shut out the Blues, 5-0

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 7–12
  1. 05:55EDMR. Nugent-Hopkinspower play(E. Bouchard, J. Walman)0–1
  2. 11:52EDMA. Mangiapane(C. Lazar)0–2
  3. 18:43EDMZ. Hyman(M. Ekholm, V. Podkolzin)0–3
2ndshots 12–6
  1. 10:52EDMZ. Hyman(C. McDavid, M. Ekholm)0–4
3rdshots 8–10
  1. 01:19EDMV. Podkolzin(C. McDavid, Z. Hyman)0–5

score reads STL–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.53
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.114
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
40.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.52Expected goals3.53
EDM 50% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal28
5High-danger chances6
66All attempts (Corsi)44
Adjusted for score: STL 66% · EDM 34%
Faceoffs · EDM won40%off42%neu59%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL0 / 5 · 1.23 xG
EDM1 / 6 · 1.27 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL0 / 16 · 1.64 xG
EDM3 / 17 · 1.82 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL0 / 45 · 0.65 xG
EDM1 / 21 · 0.44 xG

STL went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.64 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
0 G · 3.52 xG · -3.5
EDM
5 G · 3.53 xG · +1.5
0123456

STL finished -3.5 against expected, EDM +1.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST0/13
SNAP0/18
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/4
OTHER0/22
EDM
WRIST3/19
SNAP1/7
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN1/2
OTHER0/6
STL
EDM
Off the rush
0 G on 32
2.71 xG
4 G on 26
2.60 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.68 xG
1 G on 5
0.64 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-13, EDM 3-for-19. EDM scored 4 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 · 23/28 · .821
-1.5
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.3+0.3
Medium3/171.8-1.2
Low1/210.4-0.6

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

C. Ingram
EDM · 27/27 · 1.000
+3.5
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.2+1.2
Medium0/161.6+1.6
Low0/450.7+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
STL
44 shots
0
Final
82 shots
EDM
38 shots
5
STL attackEDM attack
STL EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, EDM 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
Z. Hyman
#18 · L · EDM
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:59 on ice · +3
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 22:42 on ice · +3
M. Ekholm
#14 · D · EDM
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:02 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Jan 18
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:26 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 projects a STL 2.4 - 2.6 EDM game with the Oilers at 54% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The Oilers own the underlying play. They're at 52.0% 5v5 xG and 50.0% Corsi%, while St. Louis sits at 49.0% xG and 48.0% Corsi%. But Edmonton's PDO is 0.982—they're running cold and due for positive regression. The Blues' 1.000 PDO tells a different story: results tracking underlying quality.

This gap between generation and conversion defines the matchup. If Edmonton's shot quality and volume translate as expected, the Oilers win. If St. Louis stays efficient while Edmonton's variance corrects, the Blues escape.

Jimmy Snuggerud drives the St. Louis offense: 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 high-danger goals, 11.9% shooting. Dylan Holloway provides secondary impact at 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 high-danger goal, and 10.8% shooting.

Edmonton counters with Zach Hyman, their volume leader at 1.23 xG/60: 14G 13A, 1 high-danger goal, 13.0% shooting. Connor McDavid's 0.92 xG/60 sits lower on volume, but his 25G 33A with 5 high-danger goals and 13.7% shooting shows where his game lives—finishing the cleanest looks at an elite rate.

The Oilers generate more chances, and that's their margin. The Blues must sustain the efficiency that built a 1.000 PDO while Edmonton's variance stays unfavorable. A model split this close means execution decides.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 54%
54%
EDM
Model favorite
46%
54%
STL50EDM

EDM by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.4–2.6 EDM; 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 →EDM
49.0%52.0%
48.0%50.0%
2.342.64
2.402.47
2.002.13
2.122.29
1.0000.982

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.982) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 0–10
STL
5-5-0
-7 GD · 1d rest
EDM
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.000
STL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.982
EDM 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 49.0%.
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 49.0%.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
STL
Expected in goal
J. Hofer
back-to-back.944 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.

EDM
Expected in goal
—
no game on file

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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page