Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater
← Thu, Feb 26 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at NSH

Predators hold off the Blackhawks

FinalThu, Feb 26
CHIChicago Blackhawks2NSHNashville Predators4
The verdict · earned

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

CHI 2 · NSH 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:39 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 generated more dangerous chances than Nashville and still lost 4-2—a rare breach in the scoreboard's credibility, though not as wide as it appears.

The Predators' 58% expected-goal advantage (3.25–2.38) explained the result. Yet Chicago's high-danger count of 4–3 suggested Nashville dodged a bullet. J. Annunen made 21 of 23 saves (0.913 SV%); S. Knight stopped 22 of 25 (0.880 SV%). The margin wasn't vast, but in a 4-2 game, it mattered.

Nashville's real edge was precision. At 0.074 expected goals per shot, they generated higher-quality looks than Chicago's 0.054. Shot volume tilted their way too—53% of attempts, 26–23 on net. Quantity and quality in alignment: a team that shouldn't have needed luck, and largely didn't.

The turning point came early. Steven Stamkos's wrist shot from the top of the circles (P3, 19:12) felt like the game's hinge. Nashville scored 3 goals on 24 rush chances; Chicago got 2 on 23. Both teams hunted transition efficiently. The difference was execution.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 26
CHI
2
NSH
4

Predators hold off the Blackhawks

Chances 2.4 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
2.38
NSH
3.25
42% of the chances58%

The board read CHI 2, NSH 4. The chances read CHI 2.4, NSH 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NSH
+0.8
goals above expected
NSH3.25 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.38 expected · 2 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
  1. P1 13:50NSHF. Forsberg0–1
  2. P2 04:13CHIC. Bedard1–1
  3. P3 03:16CHIT. BertuzziPP2–1
  4. P3 07:12NSHM. WoodPP2–2
  5. P3 16:44NSHR. O'Reilly2–3
  6. P3 19:12NSHS. StamkosEN2–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
31 shots
2
Final
66 shots
NSH
35 shots
4
CHI attackNSH attack
CHI NSH Goal
31
shots · 2 in
35
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHINSH
1 / 4
0.85 xG
High danger
2 / 3
1.21 xG
0 / 10
1.04 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.53 xG
1 / 30
0.50 xG
Low
0 / 28
0.50 xG

The Predators buried 2 of 3 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
J. Annunen
+0.4
NSH · 21/23
B
S. Knight
+0.3
CHI · 22/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Predators hold off the Blackhawks

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 9–8
  1. 13:50NSHF. Forsberg0–1
2ndshots 5–12
  1. 04:13CHIC. Bedard(R. Greene)1–1
3rdshots 9–6
  1. 03:16CHIT. Bertuzzipower play(T. Teravainen, S. Rinzel)2–1
  2. 07:12NSHM. Woodpower play(E. Haula)2–2
  3. 16:44NSHR. O'Reilly(R. Josi)2–3
  4. 19:12NSHS. Stamkosempty net2–4

score reads CHI–NSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.25
NSH chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.046
NSH puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
50.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.38Expected goals3.25
NSH 58% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal26
4High-danger chances3
44All attempts (Corsi)44
Adjusted for score: CHI 51% · NSH 50%
Faceoffs · NSH won44%off50%neu38%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CHI1 / 4 · 0.85 xG
NSH2 / 3 · 1.21 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CHI0 / 10 · 1.04 xG
NSH2 / 13 · 1.53 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CHI1 / 30 · 0.50 xG
NSH0 / 28 · 0.50 xG

CHI went 0-for-10 from medium danger on 1.04 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CHI
2 G · 2.38 xG · -0.4
NSH
4 G · 3.25 xG · +0.8
012345

CHI finished -0.4 against expected, NSH +0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CHI
WRIST1/16
SNAP1/5
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/13
NSH
WRIST4/23
SNAP0/6
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/9
CHI
NSH
Off the rush
2 G on 23
1.87 xG
3 G on 24
2.05 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.33 xG
0 G on 2
0.25 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-16, NSH 4-for-23. NSH scored 3 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 · 22/25 · .880
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/31.2-0.8
Medium2/131.5-0.5
Low0/280.5+0.5

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

J. Annunen
NSH · 21/23 · .913
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.8-0.1
Medium0/101.0+1.0
Low1/300.5-0.5

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

66 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CHI
31 shots
2
Final
66 shots
NSH
35 shots
4
CHI attackNSH attack
CHI NSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, NSH 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
R. Josi
#59 · D · NSH
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 25:25 on ice · +1
C. Bedard
#98 · C · CHI
1 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 21:29 on ice
S. Rinzel
#6 · D · CHI
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:53 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Feb 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:36 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

Nashville's advantage runs deeper than the forecast. The model projects a CHI 2.4 - 2.9 NSH game with the Predators favored at 58% win probability—not because Chicago lacks talent, but because the underlying play diverges sharply.

Chicago and Nashville both stumble into this matchup battered. The Blackhawks are -13 in goal differential over their last 10 games; Nashville is -11. But recent form masks the structural chasm. At 5v5, Nashville owns 49.0% of expected goals against Chicago's 42.0%. The Predators dominate possession metrics: 50.0% Corsi to Chicago's 46.0%. This isn't margin of error—it's territorial tilt, sustained across games.

The efficiency indices explain the divergence: Chicago's PDO sits at 0.996, outpacing its underlying chance quality, while Nashville's 0.992 suggests process remains sound.

Where structure translates into individual advantage: Tyler Bertuzzi drives Chicago's offense at 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes, producing 20 goals and 15 assists with 7 high-danger goals on 18.0% shooting. He cannot run free. Connor Bedard operates as a pure playmaker at 0.82 xG/60, translating 17 goals and 27 assists across 5 high-danger goals; his 11.8% shooting rate hints at further upside.

Nashville's Filip Forsberg embodies consistency: 23 goals, 17 assists, 0.80 xG/60, 4 high-danger goals, 13.6% shooting. Zachary L'Heureux generates 0.85 xG/60—matching Bertuzzi's rate—yet has scored just 4 goals with 1 high-danger goal. His 16.0% shooting rate signals hidden variance.

Both teams register 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, indicating disciplined structural play. Chicago's defense shows erosion at Anton Frondell; Jonathan Marchessault shoulders that burden for Nashville. Outmatched in both possession and structure, Chicago needs containment to become its defensive priority. Nashville's process—sustaining territorial advantage—suffices. The model rewards consistency.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NSH 58%
58%
NSH
Model favorite
42%
58%
CHI50NSH

NSH by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.4–2.9 NSH; 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
CHI← edge
edge →NSH
42.0%49.0%
46.0%50.0%
2.172.48
2.942.58
1.841.84
2.412.21
0.9960.992

NSH holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.992) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CHI
3-5-2
-13 GD · 21d rest
NSH
3-4-3
-11 GD · 20d rest
0.996
CHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.992
NSH PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Predators own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Predators drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Predators own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Predators drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Predators are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Blackhawks are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CHI
Expected in goal
S. Knight
21 days rest.842 last start
Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NSH
Expected in goal
—
no game on file

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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page