Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater

Breakdown · CHI at CBJ

Blue Jackets shut out the Blackhawks, 4-0

FinalWed, Feb 4

CHIChicago Blackhawks0 CBJColumbus Blue Jackets4

The verdict · coin flip

The Blue Jackets won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

CHI 0 · CBJ 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:59 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

Joonas Greaves and the Blue Jackets' defensive structure turned a toss-up game into a rout. Columbus and Chicago created nearly identical dangerous chances — 3.64 to 3.36 in expected goals — yet the scoreline was 4-0, a disconnect explained by goaltending performance.

Greaves was untouchable. The Columbus netminder saved all 21 shots and finished 3.36 goals better than expected, the kind of elite performance that decides close games at this margin. Chicago's S. Knight posted a 0.842 save percentage, stopping 16 of 19 shots. That 3-goal swing in performance separated a blowout from a competitive game.

The Blackhawks' real problem was execution. They fell 3.36 goals short of their expected total, meaning they generated quality chances and failed to convert. High-danger scoring chances favored Columbus 7–4, a modest edge, but in a game decided by goaltending, Chicago's missed opportunities compounded their losses.

Columbus leaned on transition to exploit the chaos. The Blue Jackets scored 4 goals on 21 rush chances, a remarkably high rate from transition play. Two of their goals came from low-danger areas, rare sources that exposed Knight's struggles to close out soft chances.

Sean Monahan's wrist shot from the doorstep (15:33, third period) crystallized the turning point. Once Columbus had daylight, Chicago found no route back.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 4

CHI

CBJ

Blue Jackets shut out the Blackhawks, 4-0

Chances 3.4 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Blue Jackets took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

3.36

CBJ

3.64

48% of the chances52%

The board read CHI 0, CBJ 4. The chances read CHI 3.4, CBJ 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

CBJ

+0.4

goals above expected

CBJ3.64 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI3.36 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blackhawks left 3.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 04:46CBJZ. Werenski0–1
P1 12:50CBJI. Provorov0–2
P2 05:17CBJD. Heinen0–3
P3 15:33CBJS. MonahanEN0–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

CHI

43 shots

Final

77 shots

CBJ

34 shots

CHI CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 0 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHICBJ

0 / 4

1.11 xG

High danger

2 / 7

2.27 xG

0 / 16

1.63 xG

Medium

0 / 7

0.77 xG

0 / 34

0.63 xG

Low

2 / 34

0.61 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A+

J. Greaves

+3.4

CBJ · 21/21

S. Knight

+0.6

CHI · 16/19

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets shut out the Blackhawks, 4-0

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 5–8

04:46CBJZ. Werenski(C. Sillinger, C. Coyle)0–1
12:50CBJI. Provorov(A. Fantilli, M. Marchment)0–2

2ndshots 9–5

05:17CBJD. Heinen(C. Coyle)0–3

3rdshots 7–7

15:33CBJS. Monahanempty net0–4

score reads CHI–CBJ

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.64

CBJ chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.083

CBJ puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

47.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.36Expected goals3.64

CBJ 52% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal20

4High-danger chances7

54All attempts (Corsi)48

Adjusted for score: CHI 60% · CBJ 40%

Faceoffs · CBJ won42%off82%neu63%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI0 / 4 · 1.11 xG

CBJ2 / 7 · 2.27 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI0 / 16 · 1.63 xG

CBJ0 / 7 · 0.77 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI0 / 34 · 0.63 xG

CBJ2 / 34 · 0.61 xG

CHI went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.63 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

0 G · 3.36 xG · -3.4

CBJ

4 G · 3.64 xG · +0.4

012345

CHI finished -3.4 against expected, CBJ +0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

SNAP0/16

WRIST0/10

SLAP0/10

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/11

CBJ

SNAP1/14

WRIST3/12

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/14

CHI

CBJ

Off the rush

0 G on 24

2.02 xG

4 G on 21

2.69 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.10 xG

0 G on 4

0.67 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CHI went 0-for-16, CBJ 1-for-14. 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

S. Knight

CHI · 16/19 · .842

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/72.3+0.3

Medium0/70.8+0.8

Low2/340.6-1.4

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. Greaves

CBJ · 21/21 · 1.000

+3.4

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/41.1+1.1

Medium0/161.6+1.6

Low0/340.6+0.6

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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

43 shots

Final

77 shots

CBJ

34 shots

CHI CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, CBJ 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

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:10 on ice · +2

Z. Werenski

#8 · D · CBJ

1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 21:45 on ice · +1

I. Provorov

#9 · D · CBJ

1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 21:04 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Feb 4

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:58 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 CHI 2.3–2.9 CBJ game with the Blue Jackets at 61% win probability. Columbus owns the underlying play and holds a rest advantage that cascades through 60 minutes.

Columbus dominates at even strength. The Blue Jackets claim 52.0% expected goals share versus Chicago's 42.0%, a margin that reflects consistent superiority in chance creation. They control territory at 51.0% Corsi—expect the puck to tilt their way when play is even. Chicago's 46.0% Corsi confirms they're on their heels in the battle for position.

The rest variable sharpens this. Columbus arrives with three days between games; Chicago has one. That single-day gap compounds through a full 60 minutes. Pace dulls, decision-making frays, and recovery in the third period becomes labored.

Chicago's form deepens the problem. Over the last 10 games, Chicago sits at minus-11 goal differential—not just losses, but defeats by wider margins than victories. Columbus is 9–1–0 in the same stretch. That's a team doing everything right: winning and winning convincingly.

The forward matchup favors Columbus. Tyler Bertuzzi (Chicago) leads offensively at 0.85 expected goals per 60, with 20 goals and 7 high-danger chances, though his 18.0% shooting rate is elevated. Connor Bedard (Chicago) pairs 17 goals with 27 assists at 11.8% shooting, more sustainable ground. Columbus counters with Boone Jenner at 0.98 xG/60 with 11 goals and 21 assists, and Mathieu Olivier at 0.89 xG/60 with 12 goals and 9 assists. Jenner's expected-goals rate exceeds Bertuzzi's—that gap signals Columbus generates better-quality chances per minute.

Goaltending introduces a Chicago liability. S. Knight is on a back-to-back, which typically signals either a backup start or a starter running on fumes. Columbus carries no equivalent warning. A backup is unpredictable; a fatigued Knight compounds Chicago's structural disadvantage against a team that controls puck movement the way Columbus does.

Both teams carry named defensive vulnerabilities—Anton Frondell for Chicago, Conor Garland for Columbus. The balance doesn't rescue Chicago. Columbus's 61% implied probability reflects superiority in the dimensions that decide games: chance creation, territorial control, and rest. Chicago's one-day turnaround and 10-point gap in expected goals don't resolve in a single game.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 61%

61%

CBJ

Model favorite

39%

61%

CHI50CBJ

CBJ by 22 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.3–2.9 CBJ; 17% 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

CHI← edge

edge →CBJ

42.0%52.0%

46.0%51.0%

2.172.63

2.942.43

1.842.12

2.411.98

0.9961.003

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CHI

3-5-2

-11 GD · 1d rest

CBJ

9-1-0

+14 GD · 3d rest

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

CBJ 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.
S. Knight 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 (9-1-0 in their last 10).
The Blackhawks are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
The Blue Jackets have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

back-to-back.889 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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.

CBJ

Expected in goal

J. Greaves

3 days rest.909 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page