Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
← Fri, Jan 30 · the slate
Breakdown · CBJ at CHI

Blue Jackets hold off the Blackhawks

FinalFri, Jan 30
CBJColumbus Blue Jackets4CHIChicago Blackhawks2
The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 4 · CHI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:21 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 Blue Jackets beat the Blackhawks 4–2 and the underlying numbers backed it up. They controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (4.19–2.84) with superior shot quality: 0.072 expected goals per shot versus Chicago's 0.054.

High-danger chances were tied 7–7, the only metric that disagreed with the scoreboard. The efficiency gap—better looks at comparable volume—tilted the result decisively. Chicago's goaltender S. Knight stopped 1.19 goals above expected, a strong performance undermined by structure: the Blackhawks held 48% of shot attempts (24–26) and underperformed their xG by 0.84 goals. E. Merzlikins posted 22 saves at 0.917 SV%, plus 0.84 goals above expected, erasing variance.

CBJ's advantage crystallized through rush dominance. Three goals on 26 rush chances proved lethal; Chicago created three rebound opportunities and converted one, Columbus six and one. Charlie Coyle's wrist shot from the slot (P3, 18:57) exemplified that control—three goals, one assist in 19:37. Z. Werenski added two assists across 27:38.

C. Bedard (1G, 1A in 22:54) supplied Chicago's lone counterpunch.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 30
CBJ
4
CHI
2

Blue Jackets hold off the Blackhawks

Chances 4.2 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
4.19
CHI
2.84
60% of the chances40%

The board read CBJ 4, CHI 2. The chances read CBJ 4.2, CHI 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
−0.2
goals above expected
CBJ4.19 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.84 expected · 2 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. P1 19:13CBJC. CoylePP1–0
  2. P1 19:57CHIC. Bedard1–1
  3. P2 01:23CBJC. Coyle2–1
  4. P2 06:47CBJM. Olivier3–1
  5. P2 10:49CHIF. Nazar3–2
  6. P3 18:57CBJC. CoyleEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
43 shots
4
Final
83 shots
CHI
40 shots
2
CBJ attackCHI attack
CBJ CHI Goal
43
shots · 4 in
40
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJCHI
1 / 7
2.30 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.61 xG
3 / 12
1.35 xG
Medium
1 / 4
0.55 xG
0 / 39
0.54 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.67 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 1 of 7, CHI 1 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
S. Knight
+1.2
CHI · 22/25
B+
E. Merzlikins
+0.8
CBJ · 22/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets hold off 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 14–8
  1. 19:13CBJC. Coylepower play(Z. Werenski, K. Marchenko)1–0
  2. 19:57CHIC. Bedard(A. Vlasic, T. Bertuzzi)1–1
2ndshots 9–8
  1. 01:23CBJC. Coyle2–1
  2. 06:47CBJM. Olivier(C. Coyle, Z. Werenski)3–1
  3. 10:49CHIF. Nazar(C. Bedard, T. Bertuzzi)3–2
3rdshots 3–8
  1. 18:57CBJC. Coyleempty net(C. Sillinger, M. Olivier)4–2

score reads CBJ–CHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.19
CBJ chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.031
CBJ puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
52.3%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.19Expected goals2.84
CBJ 60% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal24
7High-danger chances7
58All attempts (Corsi)53
Adjusted for score: CBJ 50% · CHI 51%
Faceoffs · CHI won60%off13%neu40%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CBJ1 / 7 · 2.30 xG
CHI1 / 7 · 1.61 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CBJ3 / 12 · 1.35 xG
CHI1 / 4 · 0.55 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CBJ0 / 39 · 0.54 xG
CHI0 / 42 · 0.67 xG

CBJ went 3-for-12 from medium danger on 1.35 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CBJ
4 G · 4.19 xG · -0.2
CHI
2 G · 2.84 xG · -0.8
012345

CBJ finished -0.2 against expected, CHI -0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CBJ
WRIST3/32
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND0/2
SNAP1/4
TIP IN0/3
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/15
CHI
WRIST2/28
SLAP0/7
BACKHAND0/4
SNAP0/0
TIP IN0/0
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/13
CBJ
CHI
Off the rush
3 G on 26
3.08 xG
1 G on 19
1.33 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 6
0.90 xG
1 G on 3
0.59 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 3-for-32, CHI 2-for-28. CBJ 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
E. Merzlikins
CBJ · 22/24 · .917
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.6+0.6
Medium1/40.6-0.5
Low0/420.7+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 · 22/25 · .880
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/72.3+1.3
Medium3/121.4-1.6
Low0/390.5+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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CBJ
43 shots
4
Final
83 shots
CHI
40 shots
2
CBJ attackCHI attack
CBJ CHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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
C. Coyle
#3 · C · CBJ
3 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 19:37 on ice · +3
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 27:38 on ice · +2
C. Bedard
#98 · C · CHI
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:54 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Jan 30
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:19 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 Columbus at 56% win probability in a projected 2.8-2.4 Blue Jackets victory. The edge isn't about depth or sheer talent—it's territorial dominance.

Columbus owns the underlying play. The Blue Jackets post 52.0% expected goals at 5v5 versus Chicago's 42.0% and own shot attempts at 51.0% Corsi to the Blackhawks' 46.0%. The 10-point xG spread is the operative edge. Expect Columbus to spend the night inside Chicago's blue line.

Recent form reinforces the model's lean. The Blue Jackets are 7-3-0 over their last 10 games, while Chicago has hemorrhaged goals, sitting at -12 differential in the same stretch. Neither team shows luck issues—PDO registers 1.003 for Columbus and 0.996 for Chicago—so the underlying margin is real, not a fluctuation waiting to reverse.

The matchup centers on four high-volume creators. For Columbus, Boone Jenner generates 0.98 expected goals per 60 minutes with 11 goals and 21 assists; his 9.6% shooting rate leaves room for upward regression. Mathieu Olivier supplies secondary punch at 0.89 xG/60 with 12 goals and a 13.3% shooting percentage that won't sustain. Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi at 0.85 xG/60, 20 goals, and 15 assists, though his 18.0% conversion rate is an outlier. Connor Bedard adds 0.82 xG/60, 17 goals, and 27 assists.

Neither team generates chaos at the net. Both sit at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate—this is positional, perimeter hockey, not a scrape. Columbus's defensive weak link is Conor Garland; Chicago's is Anton Frondell.

The variable: E. Merzlikins faces a back-to-back, which could influence Chicago's game plan with a tired starter or an unexpected backup.

Columbus doesn't own a dominant player edge or special-teams advantage. It's pure possession and pressure. The Blue Jackets will control play; Chicago must steal or capitalize on breakdowns.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 56%
56%
CBJ
Model favorite
56%
44%
CBJ50CHI

CBJ by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CBJ 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
CBJ← edge
edge →CHI
52.0%42.0%
51.0%46.0%
2.632.17
2.432.94
2.121.84
1.982.41
1.0030.996

CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.996) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CBJ
7-3-0
+4 GD · 1d rest
CHI
3-5-2
-12 GD · 2d rest
1.003
CBJ 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 Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • E. Merzlikins is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Blue Jackets are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
  • The Blackhawks are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CBJ
Expected in goal
E. Merzlikins
back-to-back.889 last start
Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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
S. Knight
2 days rest.870 last start
Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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
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
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