Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
← Fri, Mar 6 · the slate
Breakdown · STL at SJS

Blues edge the Sharks in overtime

Final / OTFri, Mar 6
STLSt. Louis Blues3SJSSan Jose Sharks2
The verdict · stolen

The Blues stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.81–3.37 and won anyway.

STL 3 · SJS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:57 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

St. Louis won a game San Jose dominated. The Sharks held 64% of shot attempts and posted 3.37 expected goals to 2.81, yet Robert Thomas scored at 00:54 of overtime to end it.

San Jose generated eight high-danger chances to St. Louis's five and dominated shot volume decisively (25–14 on goal). San Jose should have won on the numbers. But the Sharks went 0 for 5 on high-danger looks—a conversion drought that won't repeat—while J. Binnington posted a 0.920 save percentage, stopping 23 of 25 shots. He was +1.37 goals better than expected. A. Nedeljkovic allowed 11 of 14, a 0.786 mark, unable to overcome St. Louis's superior efficiency: the Blues generated 0.088 expected goals per shot to San Jose's 0.065.

Both teams thrived on rushes—St. Louis converted 2 of 14; San Jose converted 2 of 24. Neither drove the transition game. St. Louis created five rebound opportunities and converted one. San Jose created four and converted none. Shot volume went to San Jose. Conversion went to St. Louis.

D. Holloway (3 assists in 15:48) orchestrated St. Louis's attack. Robert Thomas (2 goals in 19:06) delivered the overtime winner. J. Snuggerud (1 goal, 1 assist in 17:08) provided secondary punch.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 6
STL
3
SJS
2

Blues edge the Sharks in overtime

Chances 2.8 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
2.81
SJS
3.37
45% of the chances55%

The board read STL 3, SJS 2. The chances read STL 2.8, SJS 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
+0.2
goals above expected
STL2.81 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS3.37 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 06:55STLJ. Snuggerud1–0
  2. P2 14:31SJSM. Celebrini1–1
  3. P2 17:46STLR. Thomas2–1
  4. P3 13:26SJSK. Sherwood2–2
  5. OT 00:54STLR. Thomas3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
22 shots
3
Final
62 shots
SJS
40 shots
2
STL attackSJS attack
STL SJS Goal
22
shots · 3 in
40
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLSJS
1 / 8
1.72 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.09 xG
1 / 6
0.76 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.61 xG
1 / 18
0.33 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.66 xG

The Sharks went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Binnington
+1.4
STL · 23/25
C
A. Nedeljkovic
−0.2
SJS · 11/14
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues edge the Sharks in overtime

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 3–11
  1. 06:55STLJ. Snuggerud(C. Fowler, D. Holloway)1–0
2ndshots 9–6
  1. 14:31SJSM. Celebrini(D. Orlov, T. Toffoli)1–1
  2. 17:46STLR. Thomas(J. Snuggerud, D. Holloway)2–1
3rdshots 1–8
  1. 13:26SJSK. Sherwood(P. Kurashev, C. Graf)2–2
OTshots 1–0
  1. 00:54STLR. Thomas(P. Broberg, D. Holloway)3–2

score reads STL–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.81
STL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.055
STL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
38.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.81Expected goals3.37
SJS 55% of the chance quality
14Shots on goal25
8High-danger chances5
32All attempts (Corsi)52
Adjusted for score: STL 35% · SJS 65%
Faceoffs · SJS won59%off54%neu71%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL1 / 8 · 1.72 xG
SJS0 / 5 · 1.09 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL1 / 6 · 0.76 xG
SJS1 / 12 · 1.61 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL1 / 18 · 0.33 xG
SJS1 / 35 · 0.66 xG

SJS went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.09 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
3 G · 2.81 xG · +0.2
SJS
2 G · 3.37 xG · -1.4
01234

STL finished +0.2 against expected, SJS -1.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST2/14
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/1
BAT0/1
SNAP1/1
OTHER0/10
SJS
WRIST1/24
SLAP1/8
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/3
BAT0/0
SNAP0/0
OTHER0/12
STL
SJS
Off the rush
2 G on 14
1.84 xG
2 G on 24
2.26 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 5
0.86 xG
0 G on 4
0.68 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 2-for-14, SJS 1-for-24. 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. Binnington
STL · 23/25 · .920
+1.4
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.1+1.1
Medium1/121.6+0.6
Low1/350.7-0.3

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

A. Nedeljkovic
SJS · 11/14 · .786
-0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/81.7+0.7
Medium1/60.8-0.2
Low1/180.3-0.7

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

62 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
STL
22 shots
3
Final
62 shots
SJS
40 shots
2
STL attackSJS attack
STL SJS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, SJS 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
D. Holloway
#81 · L · STL
0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 15:48 on ice · +3
R. Thomas
#18 · C · STL
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 19:06 on ice · +3
J. Snuggerud
#21 · R · STL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:08 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Mar 6
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:56 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 2.5 - 2.5 SJS game with the Sharks at 50% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. Both teams' underlying metrics are virtually indistinguishable: STL posts 49.0% xG%, 48.0% Corsi%, and 1.000 PDO, while SJS sits at 48.0% xG%, 47.0% Corsi%, and 0.998 PDO. Special teams and personnel will decide this one.

Watch J. Hofer's status before puck drop. The goaltender is on a back-to-back, raising the possibility of a backup start or an unusually tired starter for STL.

Players to Watch

STL

  • Jimmy Snuggerud — 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
  • Dylan Holloway — 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 HD goals, 10.8% shooting

SJS

  • Pavol Regenda — 1.10 xG/60, 5G 1A, 2 HD goals, 16.1% shooting (likely out)
  • Igor Chernyshov — 0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A, 1 HD goals, 15.0% shooting

Jimmy Snuggerud is STL's primary engine at 15 goals and 0.86 xG/60, but he's also the team's defensive weak link—an unusual combination that defines their risk profile. Dylan Holloway's 10.8% shooting rate suggests regression is coming; he's exceeded his underlying output.

The Sharks lack a clear personnel advantage. Pavol Regenda entered as a matchup concern with 1.10 xG/60 but is likely inactive. Igor Chernyshov (15.0% shooting) is their volume threat and also serves as SJS's defensive weak link—another mirrored vulnerability.

Both teams register 0% rates for high-danger and rebound goals, unsustainable metrics that will eventually regress. In an even matchup, the timing of that regression will likely decide it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

SJS 51%
50%
SJS
Model favorite
50%
50%
STL50SJS

SJS by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 2.5–2.5 SJS; 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 →SJS
49.0%48.0%
48.0%47.0%
2.342.33
2.402.56
2.001.99
2.122.32
1.0000.998

STL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.998) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
STL
4-5-1
+0 GD · 1d rest
SJS
5-4-1
-1 GD · 2d rest
1.000
STL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • J. Hofer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
STL
Expected in goal
J. Hofer
back-to-back.944 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.

SJS
Expected in goal
Y. Askarov
2 days rest.861 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
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
SJS
Pavol Regenda5G 1A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page