Backcheck
Recap · SJS at CHI

Blackhawks pull away from the Sharks

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

By the ModelJul 12, 3:46 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
SJS
San Jose Sharks
3
Home
CHI
Chicago Blackhawks
6
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.48Expected goals2.67
57% share for the better side
27Shot attempts (SOG)17
6High-danger chances5
52Corsi (all attempts)35
Score-adjusted: 66% / 34%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.


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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
Y. AskarovSJS
-2.4
A. NedeljkovicSJS
-0.9
S. KnightCHI
+0.5

SJS finished -0.5 against expected, CHI +3.3 — Y. Askarov (SJS) allowed 2.4 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
I. Mikheyev
#95 · R · CHI
1 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 16:14 TOI · +4
R. Donato
#8 · C · CHI
2 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 13:53 TOI · +5
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 23:07 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • CHI won despite being outplayed by xG (43%). Goaltending or finishing carried them.
  • Y. Askarov (SJS) gave up 2.4 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • CHI scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • CHI was lethal off the rush — 5 goals on 24 rush chances.
  • SJS was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • SJS created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CHI outperformed their expected goals by 3.3 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · SJS at CHI · 8:30 PM ET

Sharks at Blackhawks: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 3:45 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
SJS
Model favorite
52%
48%
SJS50CHI

SJS by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SJS 2.62.5 CHI; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

SJS← edge
edge →CHI
48.0%5v5 xG%42.0%
47.0%Corsi%46.0%
2.33xGF / 602.17
2.56xGA / 602.94
1.99Goals for / gm1.84
2.32Goals against / gm2.41
0.998PDO — luck, not skill0.996

SJS holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.998 vs 0.996) says SJS has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters