Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater

Breakdown · STL at DAL

Stars run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalWed, Feb 4

The verdict · earned

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

STL 4 · DAL 5

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:11 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 Stars dominated high-danger chances (6–2) but barely escaped with a 5–4 victory, saved only by superior control of other offensive metrics. Dallas held 61% of expected goals (3.56–2.25) and generated far more dangerous looks, yet St. Louis converted their limited chances efficiently.

The Blues scored 4 goals on 21 rush chances to Dallas's 2 on 20, leveraging efficiency in transition where the Stars couldn't keep up. The Stars generated 9 rebound opportunities and converted 3, but that advantage wasn't enough to overcome St. Louis's finishing touch.

Both teams beat their expected goals: the Blues overperformed by 1.75 goals while Dallas overperformed by 1.44. That narrow difference in fortune nearly cost the Stars. J. Binnington gave up 1.44 goals more than expected despite facing only 18 shots to Dallas's 28.

Dallas's quality shot-making proved decisive—they generated 0.073 expected goals per shot versus St. Louis's 0.050—with that depth of offensive threat eventually wearing down the Blues. The turning point came when Jamie Benn snapped a shot from the top of the circles.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 4

STL

DAL

Stars run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.3 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

2.25

DAL

3.56

39% of the chances61%

The board read STL 4, DAL 5. The chances read STL 2.3, DAL 3.6.

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

Luck check

DAL

+1.4

goals above expected

DAL3.56 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

STL2.25 expected · 4 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

P1 07:29STLP. BuchnevichPP1–0
P1 11:37DALJ. Robertson1–1
P1 18:33STLJ. Kyrou2–1
P2 01:55DALM. DuchenePP2–2
P2 03:58DALM. Bourque2–3
P2 11:57DALJ. Benn2–4
P3 11:05STLJ. Snuggerud3–4

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

STL

27 shots

Final

64 shots

DAL

37 shots

STL DAL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLDAL

0 / 2

0.46 xG

High danger

1 / 6

1.20 xG

4 / 12

1.40 xG

Medium

4 / 19

2.10 xG

0 / 31

0.39 xG

Low

0 / 24

0.26 xG

High-danger looks: STL 0 of 2, DAL 1 of 6.

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

In the net

D-

J. Binnington

−1.4

STL · 23/28

J. Oettinger

−1.8

DAL · 14/18

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Stars run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 5–12

07:29STLP. Buchnevichpower play(J. Kyrou, J. Faulk)1–0
11:37DALJ. Robertson(M. Rantanen, M. Heiskanen)1–1
18:33STLJ. Kyrou(J. Faulk, T. Tucker)2–1

2ndshots 5–13

01:55DALM. Duchenepower play(T. Harley, J. Benn)2–2
03:58DALM. Bourque(J. Robertson, R. Hintz)2–3
11:57DALJ. Benn(M. Duchene, E. Lindell)2–4

3rdshots 8–3

11:05STLJ. Snuggerud3–4
15:31STLA. Toropchenko(P. Broberg, J. Snuggerud)4–4
19:37DALJ. Benn(M. Heiskanen)4–5

score reads STL–DAL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.56

DAL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.013

DAL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

52.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.25Expected goals3.56

DAL 61% of the chance quality

18Shots on goal28

2High-danger chances6

45All attempts (Corsi)49

Adjusted for score: STL 50% · DAL 50%

Faceoffs · DAL won54%off53%neu53%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL0 / 2 · 0.46 xG

DAL1 / 6 · 1.20 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL4 / 12 · 1.40 xG

DAL4 / 19 · 2.10 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL0 / 31 · 0.39 xG

DAL0 / 24 · 0.26 xG

STL went 4-for-12 from medium danger on 1.40 expected goals — 2.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

4 G · 2.25 xG · +1.8

DAL

5 G · 3.56 xG · +1.4

0123456

STL finished +1.8 against expected, DAL +1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

SNAP3/13

SLAP1/7

BACKHAND0/2

WRIST0/2

TIP IN0/1

DEFLECTED0/2

OTHER0/18

DAL

SNAP5/26

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/5

WRIST0/3

TIP IN0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/12

STL

DAL

Off the rush

4 G on 21

1.68 xG

2 G on 20

1.69 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.23 xG

3 G on 9

1.47 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: STL went 3-for-13, DAL 5-for-26. STL 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. Binnington

STL · 23/28 · .821

-1.4

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.2+0.2

Medium4/192.1-1.9

Low0/240.3+0.3

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. Oettinger

DAL · 14/18 · .778

-1.8

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium4/121.4-2.6

Low0/310.4+0.4

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

64 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

27 shots

Final

64 shots

DAL

37 shots

STL DAL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, DAL 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

J. Benn

#14 · L · DAL

2 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 12:34 on ice · +1

M. Heiskanen

#4 · D · DAL

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 25:20 on ice · +1

J. Faulk

#72 · D · STL

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:40 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, 4:09 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 can't pick a winner: projected 2.3-2.5 goal range with Dallas at 53% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as exists.

Dallas has the form advantage, posting 6-4-0 in their last 10. St. Louis has been worse, mustering -8 goal differential over the same span. But underlying play tightens the gap. Dallas leads in expected goals (51.0% xG% vs. 49.0%), though barely. Shot volume favors St. Louis (48.0% Corsi% to 47.0%), a sign of defensive discipline. The Stars' power lies partly in luck: their 1.024 PDO is unsustainably hot, making Dallas the team to fade if regression comes.

Both goaltenders are on back-to-backs. Keep watch for backup deployments or tired play from J. Oettinger and J. Hofer.

The matchup centers on offensive firepower. Jimmy Snuggerud drives St. Louis's attack at 0.86 xG per 60 with 15 goals and a 11.9% shooting rate—markers of elite efficiency. Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals) adds volume. Dallas counters with Jason Robertson's elite 0.96 xG/60 and 25 goals, the game's strongest individual threat. Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8 goals) provides secondary punch.

Raw shot quality data mirrors the advanced metrics. Both teams run 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound rates—a sign of either strong goaltending or incomplete data, more likely the latter. St. Louis's defensive weak link remains Snuggerud; Dallas's is Tyler Myers. Neither team has clear separation on talent. This one likely comes down to which goalie is sharper and which team gets the fortunate bounces.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 53%

53%

DAL

Model favorite

47%

53%

STL50DAL

DAL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.3–2.5 DAL; 19% 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

STL← edge

edge →DAL

49.0%51.0%

48.0%47.0%

2.342.36

2.402.29

2.002.07

2.121.68

1.0001.024

DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

STL

3-6-1

-8 GD · 1d rest

DAL

6-4-0

+2 GD · 1d rest

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.024

DAL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Hofer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Stars are the hotter team by points pace (6-4-0 in their last 10).
The Blues are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

STL

Expected in goal

J. Hofer

back-to-back.786 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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.

DAL

Expected in goal

J. Oettinger

back-to-back.889 last start

Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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.

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

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

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page