Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
Breakdown · STL at SEA

Blues hold off the Kraken

The verdict · stolen

The Blues stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.23–4.40 and won anyway.

STL 3 · SEA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:35 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 Blues stole this one. St. Louis won 3-2 despite ceding 58% of expected goals to Seattle—a margin that should have ended in a Kraken victory.

J. Hofer was the difference. The Blues goaltender stopped 34 of 36 shots (0.944 SV%) and saved 2.40 goals above expected, carrying a St. Louis team that looked outmatched in almost every underlying metric. Seattle generated more shot attempts (36–27), more high-danger chances (7–4), and more expected goals (4.40–3.23). None of it mattered.

St. Louis executed ruthlessly in the spots that counted. The Blues converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances—50%, a rate that punishes opponents—and scored twice on 21 rush attempts. Vince Dunn's snap shot from the slot at 13:34 of the third period proved decisive. B. Schenn registered three assists in limited ice time (14:24), setting the stage for the Blues' clinical finishing.

Seattle, meanwhile, wasted a dominant performance. The Kraken created 5 rebound opportunities and converted just one. They underperformed their xG by 2.40 goals, a shortfall that left them chasing a game they should have controlled. P. Grubauer stopped 24 of 27 shots (0.889 SV%), a respectable performance undermined by the team's failure to convert high-percentage chances.

The gap between play and result was stark: Seattle dominated possession and chance creation, yet walked away with nothing. St. Louis played a simpler game and won. This is what heists look like.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 4
STL
3
SEA
2

Blues hold off the Kraken

Chances 3.2 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kraken deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
3.23
SEA
4.40
42% of the chances58%

The board read STL 3, SEA 2. The chances read STL 3.2, SEA 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
−0.2
goals above expected
STL3.23 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
SEA4.40 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kraken left 2.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:31SEAJ. Schwartz0–1
  2. P1 06:50STLL. Mailloux1–1
  3. P2 07:40STLD. Holloway2–1
  4. P3 01:33STLR. Thomas3–1
  5. P3 13:34SEAV. Dunn3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
36 shots
3
Final
90 shots
SEA
54 shots
2
STL attackSEA attack
STL SEA Goal
36
shots · 3 in
54
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLSEA
2 / 4
0.99 xG
High danger
2 / 7
1.73 xG
1 / 12
1.58 xG
Medium
0 / 18
2.02 xG
0 / 34
0.67 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.66 xG

The Blues buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Hofer
+2.4
STL · 34/36
C
P. Grubauer
+0.2
SEA · 24/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues hold off the Kraken

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 14–10
  1. 00:31SEAJ. Schwartz(A. Larsson, V. Dunn)0–1
  2. 06:50STLL. Mailloux(B. Schenn, R. Thomas)1–1
2ndshots 5–10
  1. 07:40STLD. Holloway(C. Fowler, B. Schenn)2–1
3rdshots 8–16
  1. 01:33STLR. Thomas(B. Schenn, P. Broberg)3–1
  2. 13:34SEAV. Dunn(J. Eberle, J. McCann)3–2

score reads STL–SEA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.23
STL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.030
STL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
42.7%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.23Expected goals4.40
SEA 58% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal36
4High-danger chances7
50All attempts (Corsi)67
Adjusted for score: STL 41% · SEA 60%
Faceoffs · SEA won63%off33%neu47%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL2 / 4 · 0.99 xG
SEA2 / 7 · 1.73 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL1 / 12 · 1.58 xG
SEA0 / 18 · 2.02 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL0 / 34 · 0.67 xG
SEA0 / 42 · 0.66 xG

SEA went 0-for-18 from medium danger on 2.02 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
3 G · 3.23 xG · -0.2
SEA
2 G · 4.40 xG · -2.4
012345

STL finished -0.2 against expected, SEA -2.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST1/20
TIP IN1/5
SLAP0/0
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/4
SNAP0/0
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND1/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/14
SEA
WRIST0/22
TIP IN0/8
SLAP0/12
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
SNAP2/5
BAT0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/13
STL
SEA
Off the rush
2 G on 21
1.86 xG
0 G on 22
2.16 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
0.94 xG
1 G on 5
0.91 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 1-for-20, SEA 0-for-22. STL scored 2 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. Hofer
STL · 34/36 · .944
+2.4
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.7-0.3
Medium0/182.0+2.0
Low0/420.7+0.7

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

P. Grubauer
SEA · 24/27 · .889
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/41.0-1.0
Medium1/121.6+0.6
Low0/340.7+0.7

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
STL
36 shots
3
Final
90 shots
SEA
54 shots
2
STL attackSEA attack
STL SEA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, SEA 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
B. Schenn
#10 · C · STL
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 14:24 on ice · +2
V. Dunn
#29 · D · SEA
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:12 on ice · +2
R. Thomas
#18 · C · STL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:53 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Mar 4
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:35 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 STL 2.4 - 2.4 SEA game with the Blues at 51% win probability. This is about as close to even as the market gets.

The Blues own a small underlying edge. They're generating 49.0% of expected goals at 5v5 and controlling 48.0% of shot attempts, figures that outpace the Kraken's 46.0% xG% and 45.0% Corsi%. Yet Seattle is the hotter team by points pace, posting a 7-3-0 record over their last ten games.

The Blues carry a rest advantage—three days between games compared to Seattle's one—which normally tips momentum in their favor. But J. Daccord, the Kraken's starting goaltender, is on a back-to-back, and tired starters or an unexpected backup appearance could shift equilibrium.

Watch Jimmy Snuggerud for St. Louis. The forward is generating 0.86 expected goals per 60 minutes of play, has 15 goals and 22 assists, and is shooting at an elevated 11.9%—a rate unlikely to persist but dangerous nonetheless. He's recorded 2 high-danger chances. Dylan Holloway, another Blues scorer, posts similar pressure at 0.82 xG/60 with 13 goals and 24 assists, though his shooting has been slightly more modest at 10.8%.

Seattle counters with Shane Wright at 0.77 xG/60, 8 goals, and 10 assists. His edge lies in efficiency: Wright has generated 4 high-danger chances while maintaining a 10.4% shooting percentage. Berkly Catton, the Kraken's secondary threat, carries a lower volume (0.68 xG/60, 6 goals, 8 assists) but has been uncommonly lethal around the net, posting 5 high-danger chances on an 8.8% shooting rate.

Neither team has scored from high-danger areas or rebounds at 5v5—both at 0%. Snuggerud represents St. Louis's defensive liability; Chandler Stephenson fills that role for Seattle.

The Blues' structural advantage is real but narrow. The Kraken's momentum is harder to quantify but visible in the standings. When the market splits the difference this tightly, you're looking at a genuine coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 51%
51%
STL
Model favorite
51%
49%
STL50SEA

STL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 2.4–2.4 SEA; 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 →SEA
49.0%46.0%
48.0%45.0%
2.342.13
2.402.51
2.001.87
2.121.95
1.0001.011

STL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 1.011) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
STL
3-6-1
-2 GD · 3d rest
SEA
7-3-0
+8 GD · 1d rest
1.000
STL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.011
SEA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • J. Daccord is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Kraken are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
  • The Blues have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
STL
Expected in goal
J. Hofer
3 days rest.957 last start
Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

SEA
Expected in goal
J. Daccord
back-to-back.972 last start
Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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
SEA
Shane Wright8G 10A
0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
Berkly Catton6G 8A
0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next