Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Tue, Jan 20 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at CBJ

Senators pull away from the Blue Jackets

FinalTue, Jan 20
OTTOttawa Senators4CBJColumbus Blue Jackets1
The verdict · stolen

The Senators stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.85–3.28 and won anyway.

OTT 4 · CBJ 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:54 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

Ottawa's 4–1 victory masked a closer game underneath. The Blue Jackets held 51% of shot attempts and generated 54% of expected goals (3.28–2.85), yet left with nothing. The gap was goaltending and execution.

J. Reimer saved 2.28 goals above expected on 21 stops, denying all 7 high-danger chances. E. Merzlikins was 1.0 goal worse than expected on a brief 5-for-7 stint. J. Greaves arrived too late (12 of 13, +0.85).

Columbus manufactured chances it couldn't finish—0 for 7 on high-danger opportunities and 4 squandered rebounds. Ottawa was lethal in transition: 4 goals on 20 rush attempts.

Brady Tkachuk's wrist shot from the slot (16:54, third period) exemplified the difference: Senators precise in high-leverage moments, Columbus unable to capitalize.

T. Chabot (2A, 22:10), T. Stützle (1G, 1A, 20:31), and R. Greig (1G, 1A, 15:44) distributed the load. When Ottawa needed a goal, it found one; when Columbus needed one, it didn't.

This victory belonged to Ottawa's rush efficiency and Reimer's goaltending. The underlying metrics suggested a close game, but Columbus's 0 for 7 on high-danger chances against Ottawa's 4 for 20 on rush looks decided the result.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 20
OTT
4
CBJ
1

Senators pull away from the Blue Jackets

Chances 2.9 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
2.85
CBJ
3.28
47% of the chances54%

The board read OTT 4, CBJ 1. The chances read OTT 2.9, CBJ 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+1.1
goals above expected
OTT2.85 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ3.28 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blue Jackets left 2.3 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 03:34OTTT. Kleven1–0
  2. P1 07:46CBJS. Monahan1–1
  3. P1 10:15OTTT. Stützle2–1
  4. P3 06:49OTTR. Greig3–1
  5. P3 16:54OTTB. TkachukEN4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
36 shots
4
Final
70 shots
CBJ
34 shots
1
OTT attackCBJ attack
OTT CBJ Goal
36
shots · 4 in
34
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTCBJ
2 / 2
1.12 xG
High danger
0 / 7
1.72 xG
1 / 8
0.94 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.26 xG
1 / 39
0.79 xG
Low
0 / 31
0.30 xG

The Blue Jackets went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Reimer
+2.3
OTT · 21/22
A
J. Greaves
+1.9
CBJ · 12/13
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators pull away from 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 7–5
  1. 03:34OTTT. Kleven(C. Giroux, M. Amadio)1–0
  2. 07:46CBJS. Monahan(B. Jenner, K. Johnson)1–1
  3. 10:15OTTT. Stützle(T. Chabot, N. Jensen)2–1
2ndshots 7–10no goals
    3rdshots 7–7
    1. 06:49OTTR. Greig(D. Cozens, T. Chabot)3–1
    2. 16:54OTTB. Tkachukempty net(T. Stützle, R. Greig)4–1

    score reads OTT–CBJ

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.85
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.062
    OTT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    49.5%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.85Expected goals3.28
    CBJ 54% of the chance quality
    21Shots on goal22
    2High-danger chances7
    49All attempts (Corsi)50
    Adjusted for score: OTT 45% · CBJ 55%
    Faceoffs · CBJ won36%off47%neu38%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    OTT2 / 2 · 1.12 xG
    CBJ0 / 7 · 1.72 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    OTT1 / 8 · 0.94 xG
    CBJ1 / 12 · 1.26 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    OTT1 / 39 · 0.79 xG
    CBJ0 / 31 · 0.30 xG

    CBJ went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.72 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    OTT
    4 G · 2.85 xG · +1.1
    CBJ
    1 G · 3.28 xG · -2.3
    012345

    OTT finished +1.1 against expected, CBJ -2.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    OTT
    WRIST2/18
    SNAP1/7
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND1/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/13
    CBJ
    WRIST0/10
    SNAP1/15
    TIP IN0/2
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/16
    OTT
    CBJ
    Off the rush
    4 G on 20
    2.27 xG
    1 G on 20
    2.10 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.30 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.76 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 2-for-18, CBJ 0-for-10. OTT 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. Reimer
    OTT · 21/22 · .955
    +2.3
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/71.7+1.7
    Medium1/121.3+0.3
    Low0/310.3+0.3

    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

    J. Greaves
    CBJ · 12/13 · .923
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/21.1-0.9
    Medium1/80.9-0.1
    Low1/390.8-0.2

    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

    E. Merzlikins
    CBJ · 5/7 · .714
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/21.1-0.9
    Medium1/80.9-0.1
    Low1/390.8-0.2

    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

    70 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    OTT
    36 shots
    4
    Final
    70 shots
    CBJ
    34 shots
    1
    OTT attackCBJ attack
    OTT CBJ Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, CBJ 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
    T. Chabot
    #72 · D · OTT
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:10 on ice · +1
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:31 on ice · +1
    R. Greig
    #71 · C · OTT
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:44 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Jan 20
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:51 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 this at 2.5–2.5 with Ottawa at 51% to win — a genuine coin flip.

    Ottawa controls the underlying play but carries last-10 damage. The Senators sit at 56.0% expected goals at 5-on-5, compared to 52.0% for Columbus, and own a 53.0% Corsi advantage. But that efficiency hasn't translated: they're -5 on goal differential over their last ten games, suggesting variance is working against them. Columbus's 1.003 PDO sits just above baseline while Ottawa's 0.993 sits below, hinting at regression potential in either direction.

    The Senators generate chances through Brady Tkachuk and Dylan Cozens. Tkachuk carries 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes with 11 goals and 20 assists, though his 7.5% shooting rate is depressed and his 2 high-danger chances suggest he hasn't yet cashed his talent. Cozens runs a similar 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals and 15 assists; his 9.5% shooting is healthier, though he's created only 1 high-danger chance. Neither has consistently converted from dangerous areas—the core issue for Ottawa.

    Columbus counters with Boone Jenner, who carries 0.98 xG/60, 11 goals, and 21 assists with 2 high-danger chances on his line. Mathieu Olivier, at 0.89 xG/60, has 12 goals on that same secondary role, benefiting from a 13.3% shooting rate—an outlier that will likely regress. Where Olivier differs from Cozens is shot quality: Olivier's 1 high-danger chance leaves him in pure overperformance territory.

    Both teams produce 0% of their offense from high-danger or rebound goals, a curious alignment that suggests neither has found secondary-scoring or net-front edge. Nick Jensen is Ottawa's defensive liability; Conor Garland fills that role for Columbus.

    The verdict hinges on variance. Ottawa has the chance-creation advantage and the luck that needs to normalize upward; Columbus has the conversion advantage and the luck that can't sustain it. Neither team has built a tactical edge in net-front play or secondary chances. Expect a close result where shooting percentage and health matter more than scheme.

    Players to Watch

    • Brady Tkachuk (OTT): 1.19 xG/60, 11G, 20A, 2 HD goals, 7.5% shooting
    • Dylan Cozens (OTT): 1.00 xG/60, 13G, 15A, 1 HD goal, 9.5% shooting
    • Boone Jenner (CBJ): 0.98 xG/60, 11G, 21A, 2 HD goals, 9.6% shooting
    • Mathieu Olivier (CBJ): 0.89 xG/60, 12G, 9A, 1 HD goal, 13.3% shooting
    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 51%
    51%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    OTT50CBJ

    OTT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 2.5–2.5 CBJ; 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
    OTT← edge
    edge →CBJ
    56.0%52.0%
    53.0%51.0%
    2.662.63
    2.122.43
    2.182.12
    1.991.98
    0.9931.003

    OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 1.003) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    OTT
    4-4-2
    -5 GD · 2d rest
    CBJ
    5-4-1
    +0 GD · 2d rest
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.003
    CBJ PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
    • The Senators are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    OTT
    Expected in goal
    J. Reimer
    2 days rest.882 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    CBJ
    Expected in goal
    E. Merzlikins
    2 days rest.909 last start
    Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page