Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater

Breakdown · CHI at COL

Avalanche run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Feb 28

CHIChicago Blackhawks1 COLColorado Avalanche3

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 1 · COL 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:51 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

Colorado dominated completely—66% of expected goals (4.27–2.23), 70% of shot attempts (35–15), 7–4 on high-danger chances—but the 3-1 final understates how thoroughly the Blackhawks were overmatched. S. Knight (CHI) saved 2.3 goals above expected on 32 of 34 shots (0.941 SV%), the only reason Chicago remained competitive.

The Avalanche were relentless. They generated 4 rebound opportunities and converted one; the Blackhawks created 4 chances but converted none. Both teams underperformed their xG—the Avalanche by 1.27 goals, Chicago by 1.23—but that's a story of execution, not parity. M. Blackwood (COL) posted a 0.933 SV% (1.23 goals above expected on 14 of 15 saves), solid work against limited danger.

The turning point arrived early in the third when C. Makar's wrist shot from the top of the circles (18:33, P3) gave Colorado a margin the Blackhawks never threatened.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 28

CHI

COL

Avalanche run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.2 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

2.23

COL

4.27

34% of the chances66%

The board read CHI 1, COL 3. The chances read CHI 2.2, COL 4.3.

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

Luck check

COL

−1.3

goals above expected

COL4.27 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI2.23 expected · 1 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 06:31CHIC. BedardPP1–0
P2 19:51COLC. Makar1–1
P3 07:31COLG. Brindley1–2
P3 18:33COLC. MakarEN1–3

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

Where the shots came from

CHI

27 shots

Final

82 shots

COL

55 shots

CHI COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHICOL

0 / 4

0.95 xG

High danger

2 / 7

1.96 xG

1 / 10

0.90 xG

Medium

1 / 13

1.35 xG

0 / 26

0.38 xG

Low

0 / 51

0.96 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

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

In the net

S. Knight

+2.3

CHI · 32/34

B+

M. Blackwood

+1.2

COL · 14/15

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Blackhawks 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 4–14

06:31CHIC. Bedardpower play(T. Bertuzzi, T. Teravainen)1–0

2ndshots 5–10

19:51COLC. Makar(N. MacKinnon, M. Necas)1–1

3rdshots 6–11

07:31COLG. Brindley(S. Malinski, D. Toews)1–2
18:33COLC. Makarempty net(N. MacKinnon, M. Necas)1–3

score reads CHI–COL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.27

COL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.3

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.017

COL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

64.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.23Expected goals4.27

COL 66% of the chance quality

15Shots on goal35

4High-danger chances7

40All attempts (Corsi)71

Adjusted for score: CHI 35% · COL 65%

Faceoffs · COL won75%off53%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI0 / 4 · 0.95 xG

COL2 / 7 · 1.96 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI1 / 10 · 0.90 xG

COL1 / 13 · 1.35 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI0 / 26 · 0.38 xG

COL0 / 51 · 0.96 xG

COL went 0-for-51 from low danger on 0.96 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

1 G · 2.23 xG · -1.2

COL

3 G · 4.27 xG · -1.3

012345

CHI finished -1.2 against expected, COL -1.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

WRIST0/8

SNAP1/9

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/13

COL

WRIST2/37

SNAP1/9

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/16

CHI

COL

Off the rush

1 G on 16

1.35 xG

1 G on 30

2.24 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.21 xG

1 G on 4

0.63 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 0-for-8, COL 2-for-37.

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 · 32/34 · .941

+2.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/72.0-0.0

Medium1/131.4+0.3

Low0/511.0+1.0

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

M. Blackwood

COL · 14/15 · .933

+1.2

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.9+0.9

Medium1/100.9-0.1

Low0/260.4+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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

27 shots

Final

82 shots

COL

55 shots

CHI COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, COL 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. Makar

#8 · D · COL

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 23:49 on ice · +2

N. MacKinnon

#29 · C · COL

0 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 23:32 on ice · +2

M. Necas

#88 · C · COL

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 23:05 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Feb 28

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:50 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 Avalanche own this matchup on underlying metrics. The model projects a 2.2–3.1 victory with Colorado at 65% win probability. The Avalanche dominate 5v5 play at 57.0% expected goals share to Chicago's 42.0%, and control territory at 57.0% Corsi. Chicago's -12 goal differential over the last ten games signals collapse; Colorado's -5, while still negative, leaves room for outright dominance.

Colorado's edge has a flaw: a PDO of 1.021 means the Avalanche are running hot on finishing luck. Regression is baked into the forecast. Chicago's 0.996 PDO is closer to neutral, which makes their structural weakness—42.0% xG%, 46.0% Corsi%—all the starker.

Watch for goaltending depth. M. Blackwood and S. Knight both play on back-to-back nights, raising the odds of a tired starter or a backup appearance.

Tyler Bertuzzi is Chicago's most dangerous forward. He has 20 goals and 15 assists with 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes, 7 high-danger chances, and an 18.0% shooting percentage. Connor Bedard underwhelms that metric: 17 goals, 27 assists, 0.82 xG/60, 5 high-danger chances, and 11.8% shooting. Bedard's disparity between points and expected output suggests playmaking outpacing finishing.

Colorado's scoring threats are Artturi Lehkonen and Ross Colton. Lehkonen has generated 1.11 xG/60 with 18 goals, 22 assists, 6 high-danger chances, and 14.9% shooting. Colton posts 1.10 xG/60 but has only 7 goals and 15 assists with 1 high-danger chance at 4.9% shooting—a severe underperformance that forecasts positive regression.

Anton Frondell is Chicago's defensive liability. Nazem Kadri represents the same structural flaw for Colorado. If the Avalanche's PDO cools as expected, these weak links will determine whether Colorado coasts to a multi-goal win or leaves the door cracked for Chicago.

The Avalanche should prevail. Regression risk is real, but underlying dominance usually holds.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 65%

65%

COL

Model favorite

35%

65%

CHI50COL

COL by 30 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.2–3.1 COL; 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 →COL

42.0%57.0%

46.0%57.0%

2.173.03

2.942.30

1.842.63

2.411.56

0.9961.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CHI

3-5-2

-12 GD · 1d rest

COL

4-5-1

-5 GD · 1d rest

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.021

COL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
M. Blackwood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Avalanche are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
The Blackhawks are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

back-to-back.880 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.

COL

Expected in goal

M. Blackwood

back-to-back.912 last start

Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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

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

COL

Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A

1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh

Ross Colton7G 15A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page