Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
Breakdown · CBJ at STL

Blue Jackets hold off the Blues

The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 5 · STL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:27 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

Columbus won 5–3 despite St. Louis controlling the game—59% of shot attempts and a 3.35–2.95 expected-goals edge. The Blue Jackets overperformed their expected goals by 1.65, a variance line reflecting both elite finishing and shaky goaltending.

Columbus scored twice from low-danger spots, the kind of margin goalies should protect. On the rush, they were lethal—four goals on 25 chances, an unsustainable rate.

J. Binnington finished at 0.818 on 22 shots, 0.65 goals below expectation. That gap is the difference between a 4–3 game and a blowout.

St. Louis had volume without precision. High-danger chances went 3–2 their way, but only two of their three goals came from dangerous areas. The rest was noise.

Mason Marchment's wrist shot from the point at 19:30 of the first period set the tone. Columbus never gave it back.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 31
CBJ
5
STL
3

Blue Jackets hold off the Blues

Chances 3.4 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
3.35
STL
2.95
53% of the chances47%

The board read CBJ 5, STL 3. The chances read CBJ 3.4, STL 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
+1.6
goals above expected
CBJ3.35 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
STL2.95 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blue Jackets scored 1.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 07:11STLJ. Snuggerud0–1
  2. P1 07:48CBJI. Lundeström1–1
  3. P1 12:54CBJD. Mateychuk2–1
  4. P2 03:15STLJ. BerggrenPP2–2
  5. P2 08:30CBJK. JohnsonPP3–2
  6. P2 13:35STLT. Tucker3–3
  7. P2 16:01CBJD. Severson4–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
41 shots
5
Final
88 shots
STL
47 shots
3
CBJ attackSTL attack
CBJ STL Goal
41
shots · 5 in
47
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJSTL
1 / 3
1.42 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.49 xG
2 / 12
1.16 xG
Medium
2 / 16
1.69 xG
2 / 37
0.76 xG
Low
1 / 40
0.77 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 1 of 3, STL 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
J. Greaves
−0.1
CBJ · 30/33
D
J. Binnington
−0.7
STL · 18/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets 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 10–8
  1. 07:11STLJ. Snuggerud(B. Schenn, D. Dvorsky)0–1
  2. 07:48CBJI. Lundeström(B. Jenner, M. Wood)1–1
  3. 12:54CBJD. Mateychuk(K. Johnson, S. Monahan)2–1
2ndshots 9–9
  1. 03:15STLJ. Berggrenpower play(P. Suter, B. Schenn)2–2
  2. 08:30CBJK. Johnsonpower play(I. Provorov, D. Voronkov)3–2
  3. 13:35STLT. Tucker(J. Berggren, J. Snuggerud)3–3
  4. 16:01CBJD. Severson(Z. Werenski)4–3
3rdshots 4–16
  1. 19:30CBJM. Marchmentempty net(K. Marchenko, A. Fantilli)5–3

score reads CBJ–STL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.35
CBJ chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.044
CBJ puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
47.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.35Expected goals2.95
CBJ 53% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal33
3High-danger chances2
52All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: CBJ 45% · STL 55%
Faceoffs · STL won47%off65%neu46%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CBJ1 / 3 · 1.42 xG
STL0 / 2 · 0.49 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CBJ2 / 12 · 1.16 xG
STL2 / 16 · 1.69 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CBJ2 / 37 · 0.76 xG
STL1 / 40 · 0.77 xG

CBJ went 2-for-37 from low danger on 0.76 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CBJ
5 G · 3.35 xG · +1.6
STL
3 G · 2.95 xG · +0.1
0123456

CBJ finished +1.6 against expected, STL +0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CBJ
WRIST3/21
SLAP1/6
SNAP0/5
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/4
OTHER0/11
STL
WRIST3/29
SLAP0/6
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/3
OTHER0/11
CBJ
STL
Off the rush
4 G on 25
1.43 xG
1 G on 31
2.26 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.19 xG
0 G on 2
0.30 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 3-for-21, STL 3-for-29. CBJ 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. Greaves
CBJ · 30/33 · .909
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium2/161.7-0.3
Low1/400.8-0.2

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

J. Binnington
STL · 18/22 · .818
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/31.4+0.4
Medium2/121.2-0.8
Low2/370.8-1.2

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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CBJ
41 shots
5
Final
88 shots
STL
47 shots
3
CBJ attackSTL attack
CBJ STL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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
B. Schenn
#10 · C · STL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:34 on ice · -1
J. Snuggerud
#21 · R · STL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:06 on ice · -1
J. Berggren
#29 · R · STL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 13:46 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 31
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:26 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 2.5–2.5 final score with the Blue Jackets at exactly 50% win probability. Columbus and St. Louis are as evenly matched as a regular-season game gets.

Columbus owns the underlying shot quality by a narrow margin. The Blue Jackets generate 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals, while the Blues manage 49.0%—a modest but measurable edge that suggests Columbus will press play. The same advantage shows up in territory: Columbus drives 51.0% of shot attempts to St. Louis's 48.0%. These metrics suggest the Jackets will control the game's rhythm, though not by enough to break a coin flip.

Both teams' goal production tracks roughly where it should. Columbus's PDO sits at 1.003, virtually at true talent level, as does St. Louis's at 1.000, meaning neither team is riding shooting luck or broken by it. This is a game between two evenly constructed rosters.

Watch Boone Jenner for Columbus. At 0.98 expected goals per 60 minutes, Jenner is Columbus's most dangerous finisher—he's combined that shot quality with 11 goals and a 9.6% shooting rate that suggests he's converting at a sustainable clip. Mathieu Olivier supplies secondary scoring punch at 0.89 xG/60 with 12 goals, and his 13.3% shooting rate indicates he's finding space on chances that matter.

St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud, who generates 0.86 expected goals per 60 to lead the Blues. Despite ranking slightly behind Jenner in underlying metrics, Snuggerud has 15 goals—a sign that he finishes at an 11.9% rate that outpaces his xG. Dylan Holloway rounds out the forward group at 0.82 xG/60 with 13 goals, though his 10.8% shooting rate suggests his total is closer to sustainable levels.

The structural advantage belongs to Columbus: better possession metrics, superior shot quality, territorial control. But the Blues' current goal totals—especially Snuggerud's 15—suggest St. Louis is punching slightly above its underlying play. That variance could cut either way in a single game.

The real story is the margin itself: two teams so evenly matched that the model can only shrug. Columbus will likely dictate play. Whether that translates to two points is the question no advance metric can answer.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 50%
50%
CBJ
Model favorite
50%
50%
CBJ50STL

CBJ by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.5–2.5 STL; 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 →STL
52.0%49.0%
51.0%48.0%
2.632.34
2.432.40
2.122.00
1.982.12
1.0031.000

CBJ holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.000) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
CBJ
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
STL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.000
STL 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 49.0%.
  • 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 49.0%.
  • The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
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
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