Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater

Breakdown · FLA at CHI

Panthers pull away from the Blackhawks

FinalSun, Jan 25

FLAFlorida Panthers5 CHIChicago Blackhawks1

The verdict · earned

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

FLA 5 · CHI 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:35 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

The Panthers won 5-1, but the expected goals told a closer story — they controlled 57% of 5v5 xG (2.69–2.06) while the Blackhawks held 47% of shot attempts (22–25). The blowout scoreline came from execution: the Panthers scored 2.31 goals above their xG, while the Blackhawks managed 1 against their 2.06 expected.

D. Tarasov stopped 21 of 22 shots (0.955 SV%), finishing 1.06 goals above expected. S. Knight saved 20 of 24 (0.833 SV%) while giving up 1.31 goals more than expected. The difference wasn't just goaltending. The Blackhawks generated 3 rebound opportunities without converting; the Panthers were lethal on the rush, converting 4 goals on 29 chances.

The Panthers' control came from three layers. G. Forsling (2A in 23:20) and E. Rodrigues (2A in 16:44) set the tempo. C. Verhaeghe (1G, 1A in 15:17) finished the chances. Chicago didn't falter defensively — it was outpaced and outfinished.

Tobias Bjornfot's wrist shot from a sharp angle in the third period didn't change the trajectory. It confirmed it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 25

FLA

CHI

Panthers pull away from the Blackhawks

Chances 2.7 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

2.69

CHI

2.06

57% of the chances43%

The board read FLA 5, CHI 1. The chances read FLA 2.7, CHI 2.1.

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

Luck check

FLA

+2.3

goals above expected

FLA2.69 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI2.06 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Panthers scored 2.3 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P2 15:33FLAT. Bjornfot1–0
P2 19:30CHIT. Bertuzzi1–1
P3 05:20FLAM. Samoskevich2–1
P3 07:24FLAC. Verhaeghe3–1
P3 18:11FLAS. ReinhartEN4–1
P3 19:38FLAT. Bjornfot5–1

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

Where the shots came from

FLA

33 shots

Final

66 shots

CHI

33 shots

FLA CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLACHI

1 / 4

0.79 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.61 xG

3 / 13

1.45 xG

Medium

0 / 10

1.00 xG

1 / 30

0.45 xG

Low

0 / 26

0.45 xG

High-danger looks: FLA 1 of 4, CHI 1 of 3.

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

In the net

B+

D. Tarasov

+1.1

FLA · 21/22

D-

S. Knight

−1.3

CHI · 20/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Panthers pull away from 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 7–8no goals

2ndshots 9–8

15:33FLAT. Bjornfot(C. Schwindt)1–0
19:30CHIT. Bertuzzi(I. Mikheyev, W. Kaiser)1–1

3rdshots 9–6

05:20FLAM. Samoskevich(G. Forsling)2–1
07:24FLAC. Verhaeghe(E. Rodrigues, G. Forsling)3–1
18:11FLAS. Reinhartempty net(E. Rodrigues, E. Luostarinen)4–1
19:38FLAT. Bjornfot(C. Verhaeghe, A. Lundell)5–1

score reads FLA–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.69

FLA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.081

FLA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

54.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.69Expected goals2.06

FLA 57% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal22

4High-danger chances3

47All attempts (Corsi)39

Adjusted for score: FLA 53% · CHI 47%

Faceoffs · CHI won53%off38%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA1 / 4 · 0.79 xG

CHI1 / 3 · 0.61 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA3 / 13 · 1.45 xG

CHI0 / 10 · 1.00 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA1 / 30 · 0.45 xG

CHI0 / 26 · 0.45 xG

FLA went 3-for-13 from medium danger on 1.45 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

5 G · 2.69 xG · +2.3

CHI

1 G · 2.06 xG · -1.1

0123456

FLA finished +2.3 against expected, CHI -1.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

WRIST3/25

SNAP0/1

SLAP0/0

BACKHAND1/2

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/2

WRAP AROUND1/1

OTHER0/14

CHI

WRIST1/15

SNAP0/6

SLAP0/7

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/6

FLA

CHI

Off the rush

4 G on 29

2.37 xG

1 G on 20

1.64 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.19 xG

0 G on 3

0.26 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 3-for-25, CHI 1-for-15. FLA 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

D. Tarasov

FLA · 21/22 · .955

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.6-0.4

Medium0/101.0+1.0

Low0/260.5+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

S. Knight

CHI · 20/24 · .833

-1.3

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.8-0.2

Medium3/131.4-1.6

Low1/300.5-0.6

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

66 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

33 shots

Final

66 shots

CHI

33 shots

FLA CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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

G. Forsling

#42 · D · FLA

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:20 on ice · +3

E. Rodrigues

#17 · C · FLA

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 16:44 on ice · +2

C. Verhaeghe

#23 · C · FLA

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:17 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Jan 25

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:32 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 2.7–2.5 Panthers win with Florida at 54% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

But the underlying play tells a different story. Florida dominates at 5v5: 49.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi, nearly seven points ahead of Chicago's 42.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi. Territorial control of that magnitude should produce clear wins on the scoreboard.

Florida has not converted it. The Panthers sit -15 in goal differential over their last 10 games. PDO—the ratio of goals per shot for and against—offers an explanation. Florida's is 0.989, indicating they're scoring below expectation. Chicago's 0.996 is nearly neutral. The Panthers need regression to stop and conversion to resume.

A. Soderblom faces the net on a back-to-back, a fatigue liability that could tip this already wafer-thin margin.

Florida's offense pivots on Sam Bennett (18 goals, 19 assists, 0.97 xG/60, 13.1% shooting) and Brad Marchand (17 goals, 9 assists, 0.93 xG/60, 19.5% shooting). Marchand's 19.5% shooting suggests heat that eventually cools; Bennett's 13.1% is sustainable.

Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi (20 goals, 15 assists, 0.85 xG/60, 18.0% shooting) and Connor Bedard (17 goals, 27 assists, 0.82 xG/60, 11.8% shooting). Bedard's 27 assists paired with 11.8% shooting means he's creating but not capitalizing.

The tension is clear: Florida owns the play but not the scoresheet. Chicago lacks the underlying dominance yet stays close anyway. That contradiction is what the 54% margin reflects—not conviction, but arithmetic facing uncertainty.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 54%

54%

FLA

Model favorite

54%

46%

FLA50CHI

FLA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score FLA 2.7–2.5 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

FLA← edge

edge →CHI

49.0%42.0%

52.0%46.0%

2.482.17

2.562.94

1.981.84

2.212.41

0.9890.996

FLA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 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

FLA

5-5-0

-15 GD · 2d rest

CHI

5-4-1

-2 GD · 1d rest

0.989

FLA 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 Panthers own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Panthers own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
A. Soderblom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Panthers are underwater at -15 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

FLA

Expected in goal

D. Tarasov

2 days rest.944 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI

Expected in goal

A. Soderblom

back-to-back.968 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

FLA

Sam Bennett18G 19A

0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh

Brad Marchand17G 9A

0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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

Back to the front page