Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
Breakdown · DAL at STL

Stars hold off the Blues

The verdict · earned

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

DAL 4 · STL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:50 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 expected-goals split (2.41–2.67) declared this nearly even, yet Dallas won 4–3. The Stars outscored their models by 1.33 goals; Binnington gave up 1.33 more. That swing decided the night.

St. Louis controlled the volume: 52% of shot attempts (26–24 on goal) and a 5–4 high-danger edge. Dallas couldn't convert that chaos—0 for 5 on HD chances—but made it up on the power play with 2 goals on 15 shots (0.88 xG). St. Louis leaked two low-danger goals; the kind no goaltender is supposed to concede. Both teams struck off the rush at the same rate (STL 3 of 20, Dallas 3 of 26).

Where the game broke: Binnington's 0.833 save percentage finished 1.33 goals below expected. Oettinger (0.885) underperformed by only 0.59. In a dead-even xG battle, that gap was the difference. St. Louis's goalie was a wall on high-danger (100% on 5), but the periphery found him wanting.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 27
DAL
4
STL
3

Stars hold off the Blues

Chances 2.7 – 2.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Stars took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
2.67
STL
2.41
53% of the chances47%

The board read DAL 4, STL 3. The chances read DAL 2.7, STL 2.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
+1.3
goals above expected
DAL2.67 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
STL2.41 expected · 3 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
  1. P2 03:20DALM. DuchenePP1–0
  2. P2 04:00DALM. Duchene2–0
  3. P2 18:06DALR. HintzPP3–0
  4. P3 03:15STLR. Fabbri3–1
  5. P3 06:22STLB. Schenn3–2
  6. P3 15:50STLB. Schenn3–3
  7. P3 18:53DALT. Harley4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
41 shots
4
Final
76 shots
STL
35 shots
3
DAL attackSTL attack
DAL STL Goal
41
shots · 4 in
35
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALSTL
0 / 5
0.99 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.11 xG
3 / 10
0.99 xG
Medium
1 / 6
0.67 xG
1 / 43
0.69 xG
Low
2 / 47
0.63 xG

The Blues went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
J. Oettinger
−0.6
DAL · 23/26
D-
J. Binnington
−1.3
STL · 20/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars 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 9–9no goals
    2ndshots 9–6
    1. 03:20DALM. Duchenepower play(M. Rantanen, J. Robertson)1–0
    2. 04:00DALM. Duchene(T. Harley, S. Steel)2–0
    3. 18:06DALR. Hintzpower play(J. Robertson, M. Heiskanen)3–0
    3rdshots 6–11
    1. 03:15STLR. Fabbri(J. Faulk, T. Tucker)3–1
    2. 06:22STLB. Schenn(J. Snuggerud, D. Dvorsky)3–2
    3. 15:50STLB. Schenn(J. Snuggerud)3–3
    4. 18:53DALT. Harley(W. Johnston)4–3

    score reads DAL–STL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.67
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.016
    DAL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    50.4%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.67Expected goals2.41
    DAL 53% of the chance quality
    24Shots on goal26
    5High-danger chances4
    58All attempts (Corsi)57
    Adjusted for score: DAL 47% · STL 53%
    Faceoffs · STL won56%off47%neu36%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    DAL0 / 5 · 0.99 xG
    STL0 / 4 · 1.11 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    DAL3 / 10 · 0.99 xG
    STL1 / 6 · 0.67 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    DAL1 / 43 · 0.69 xG
    STL2 / 47 · 0.63 xG

    DAL went 3-for-10 from medium danger on 0.99 expected goals — 2.0 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    DAL
    4 G · 2.67 xG · +1.3
    STL
    3 G · 2.41 xG · +0.6
    012345

    DAL finished +1.3 against expected, STL +0.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    DAL
    WRIST1/23
    SNAP0/6
    TIP IN1/5
    SLAP1/3
    BACKHAND1/3
    BETWEEN LEGS0/1
    OTHER0/17
    STL
    WRIST3/26
    SNAP0/6
    TIP IN0/1
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/0
    BETWEEN LEGS0/0
    OTHER0/22
    DAL
    STL
    Off the rush
    3 G on 26
    1.94 xG
    3 G on 20
    1.98 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.52 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.07 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 1-for-23, STL 3-for-26. DAL scored 3 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. Oettinger
    DAL · 23/26 · .885
    -0.6
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/41.1+1.1
    Medium1/60.7-0.3
    Low2/470.6-1.4

    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

    J. Binnington
    STL · 20/24 · .833
    -1.3
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.0+1.0
    Medium3/101.0-2.0
    Low1/430.7-0.3

    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

    76 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    DAL
    41 shots
    4
    Final
    76 shots
    STL
    35 shots
    3
    DAL attackSTL attack
    DAL STL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, STL 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. Harley
    #55 · D · DAL
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:11 on ice
    J. Snuggerud
    #21 · R · STL
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:32 on ice · +3
    J. Robertson
    #21 · L · DAL
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:29 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Jan 27
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:47 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 2.4–2.4 game with the Blues at 51% win probability. You are not going to get clearer than that.

    Dallas edges St. Louis in expected goals at 5v5, holding a 51.0% xG% to the Blues' 49.0%. The underlying advantage is real but marginal. St. Louis counters with a slight Corsi edge—48.0% to Dallas's 47.0%—meaning they generate marginally more volume despite producing less quality. In a tight matchup, both teams have something defensible to point to.

    The complication is Dallas's PDO of 1.024. The Stars are shooting hot and scoring on chances at a rate regression demands they won't sustain. St. Louis sits at 1.000, which is neutral—no luck working for or against them. If Dallas's shooting regresses toward league average, the margin compresses further.

    St. Louis arrives in genuinely poor form, carrying a -11 goal differential over their last 10 games. That's the kind of gap you find among sellers and teams looking for coaching changes, not playoff contenders. The Blues need to reverse course immediately or accept that this season has already slipped.

    Jason Robertson carries Dallas's offensive load at 0.96 xG/60 with 25 goals and 21 assists. He's shooting 12.4%, which is elevated but not unsustainable for a player of his caliber. He has 2 high-danger goals. Michael Bunting provides secondary scoring at 0.83 xG/60, 8 goals and 14 assists, shooting 7.6%—proof that secondary lines matter when your first line is generating this much volume.

    St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud at 0.86 xG/60, 15 goals and 22 assists, also with 2 high-danger goals and a 11.9% shooting rate. Dylan Holloway sits at 0.82 xG/60 with 13 goals and 24 assists, shooting 10.8%. Both are producing at meaningful volume. The question is whether they can sustain that production when Dallas's own usage will compress if its shooting regresses.

    The defensive vulnerabilities cut both ways. Tyler Myers is Dallas's weak link; Snuggerud carries that role for St. Louis. Neither team's defense is built to hold a lead if the game tightens. This is a coaching decision made visible by the numbers.

    The model is right. This is a pick'em. Dallas has the form and efficiency advantage. St. Louis has the desperation and marginal underlying metrics. Coinflips are coinflips because they split evenly. Expect a tight game that could turn on bounces and which goaltender steals one his team doesn't deserve.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    STL 51%
    51%
    STL
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    DAL50STL

    STL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 2.4–2.4 STL; 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
    DAL← edge
    edge →STL
    51.0%49.0%
    47.0%48.0%
    2.362.34
    2.292.40
    2.072.00
    1.682.12
    1.0241.000

    DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.000) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    DAL
    4-5-1
    -1 GD · 3d rest
    STL
    3-6-1
    -11 GD · 2d rest
    1.024
    DAL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.000
    STL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Blues are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    DAL
    Expected in goal
    J. Oettinger
    3 days rest.909 last start
    Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    STL
    Expected in goal
    J. Hofer
    2 days rest.857 last start
    Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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
    DAL
    Jason Robertson25G 21A
    0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
    Michael Bunting8G 14A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next