Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
Breakdown · SJS at CHI

Blackhawks pull away from the Sharks

The verdict · stolen

The Blackhawks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.48–2.67 and won anyway.

SJS 3 · CHI 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:46 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

Chicago's 6–3 victory masked a lopsided advantage for San Jose. The Blackhawks controlled just 43% of expected goals (2.67–3.48), yet prevailed because S. Knight's 0.889 save percentage (24/27) transformed what should have been a deficit into a convincing win.

The Blackhawks' path to victory ran through efficiency on the rush. They scored five goals on 24 attempts, a conversion rate San Jose matched at two goals from 26 chances—equivalent finishing in a game separated by goaltending alone. I. Mikheyev (1G, 3A in 16:14) and R. Donato (2G, 2A in 13:53) anchored Chicago's output through precision placement.

Two Sharks goalies failed simultaneously. Y. Askarov stopped 6 of 10 (0.600 SV%), underperforming expected saves by 2.43. A. Nedeljkovic, in limited action, surrendered 0.90 additional goals above expectation. Their combined collapse negated San Jose's 57% high-danger advantage (6–5) and five rebound opportunities without a conversion—evidence of urgency that counted for nothing.

The Sharks generated the superior game. Chicago converted opportunity and goaltending into a scoreline that expected goals would call improbable. On a night like this, expected goals theory bends to the scoreboard.


The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 2
SJS
3
CHI
6

Blackhawks pull away from the Sharks

Chances 3.5 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
3.48
CHI
2.67
57% of the chances43%

The board read SJS 3, CHI 6. The chances read SJS 3.5, CHI 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
+3.3
goals above expected
CHI2.67 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS3.48 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks scored 3.3 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 07:00CHIC. BedardPP0–1
  2. P2 02:14CHIC. Murphy0–2
  3. P2 09:35CHIR. Donato0–3
  4. P2 10:36CHIS. Rinzel0–4
  5. P2 12:05SJSW. Smith1–4
  6. P2 12:41CHII. Mikheyev1–5
  7. P2 15:11SJSM. Celebrini2–5
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
43 shots
3
Final
72 shots
CHI
29 shots
6
SJS attackCHI attack
SJS CHI Goal
43
shots · 3 in
29
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSCHI
1 / 6
1.36 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.29 xG
2 / 14
1.42 xG
Medium
3 / 8
0.85 xG
0 / 32
0.70 xG
Low
2 / 22
0.53 xG

High-danger looks: SJS 1 of 6, CHI 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
A. Nedeljkovic
+0.7
SJS · 5/7
B
S. Knight
+0.5
CHI · 24/27
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blackhawks pull away from the Sharks

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 1–4
  1. 07:00CHIC. Bedardpower play(T. Teravainen, T. Bertuzzi)0–1
2ndshots 12–9
  1. 02:14CHIC. Murphy(M. Grzelcyk, R. Donato)0–2
  2. 09:35CHIR. Donato(I. Mikheyev, J. Dickinson)0–3
  3. 10:36CHIS. Rinzel(I. Mikheyev)0–4
  4. 12:05SJSW. Smith(M. Celebrini, C. Graf)1–4
  5. 12:41CHII. Mikheyev(J. Dickinson, R. Donato)1–5
  6. 15:11SJSM. Celebrini(T. Toffoli, W. Eklund)2–5
3rdshots 14–4
  1. 02:13SJSS. Mukhamadullin(P. Kurashev, V. Desharnais)3–5
  2. 14:41CHIR. Donato(I. Mikheyev, C. Murphy)3–6

score reads SJS–CHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.67
CHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.114
CHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
40.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.48Expected goals2.67
SJS 57% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal17
6High-danger chances5
52All attempts (Corsi)35
Adjusted for score: SJS 66% · CHI 34%
Faceoffs · CHI won53%off30%neu63%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS1 / 6 · 1.36 xG
CHI1 / 5 · 1.29 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS2 / 14 · 1.42 xG
CHI3 / 8 · 0.85 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS0 / 32 · 0.70 xG
CHI2 / 22 · 0.53 xG

CHI went 3-for-8 from medium danger on 0.85 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
3 G · 3.48 xG · -0.5
CHI
6 G · 2.67 xG · +3.3
01234567

SJS finished -0.5 against expected, CHI +3.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SJS
WRIST1/29
TIP IN0/5
SNAP1/5
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
CHI
WRIST3/17
TIP IN1/2
SNAP1/2
SLAP1/4
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/6
SJS
CHI
Off the rush
2 G on 26
2.13 xG
5 G on 24
2.50 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.80 xG
1 G on 2
0.10 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 1-for-29, CHI 3-for-17. CHI scored 5 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
Y. Askarov
SJS · 6/10 · .600
-1.3
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.3+0.3
Medium3/80.8-2.1
Low2/220.5-1.5

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

A. Nedeljkovic
SJS · 5/7 · .714
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.3+0.3
Medium3/80.8-2.1
Low2/220.5-1.5

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 · 24/27 · .889
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.4+0.4
Medium2/141.4-0.6
Low0/320.7+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

72 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SJS
43 shots
3
Final
72 shots
CHI
29 shots
6
SJS attackCHI attack
SJS CHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS 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
I. Mikheyev
#95 · R · CHI
1 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 16:14 on ice · +4
R. Donato
#8 · C · CHI
2 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 13:53 on ice · +5
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 23:07 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Feb 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:45 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 2.6-2.5 Sharks victory with San Jose at 52% win probability—pick'em territory.

San Jose commands the underlying play. The Sharks carry a 48.0% 5v5 expected goals percentage to Chicago's 42.0%, with possession metrics to match (47.0% Corsi to 46.0%). Both teams sit at neutral PDO (0.998 and 0.996), so fortune hasn't yet shifted either way.

Form trends favor San Jose: 5-4-1 in its last 10 against Chicago's -17 goal differential in the same stretch.

Pavol Regenda has led San Jose at 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes with 5 goals and 1 assist, though he's marked likely out. Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6 goals, 8 assists, 15.0% shooting) supplies secondary depth.

Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi (0.85 xG/60, 20 goals, 15 assists, 7 high-danger goals) and Connor Bedard (0.82 xG/60, 17 goals, 27 assists, 11.8% shooting).

Both teams operate with 0% high-danger and rebound goal rates. Chernyshov marks San Jose's defensive weak spot; Anton Frondell does for Chicago.

San Jose holds an edge in creation and momentum. In a pick'em, that's enough to get the nod, not enough to trust.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

SJS 52%
52%
SJS
Model favorite
52%
48%
SJS50CHI

SJS by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SJS 2.6–2.5 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
SJS← edge
edge →CHI
48.0%42.0%
47.0%46.0%
2.332.17
2.562.94
1.991.84
2.322.41
0.9980.996

SJS holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.996) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SJS
5-4-1
-2 GD · 2d rest
CHI
2-6-2
-17 GD · 2d rest
0.998
SJS 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 Sharks own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Sharks own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Sharks are the hotter team by points pace (5-4-1 in their last 10).
  • The Blackhawks are underwater at -17 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
SJS
Expected in goal
A. Nedeljkovic
2 days rest.929 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI
Expected in goal
S. Knight
2 days rest.880 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
SJS
Pavol Regenda5G 1A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% 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