Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
Breakdown · CHI at DAL

Stars run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 3 · DAL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:15 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

Dallas won 4-3 in overtime. The underlying play showed a wider gap: the Stars commanded 64% of 5v5 expected goals (3.92–2.17), held 62% of shot attempts (31–19), and led 5–2 in high-danger chances.

A. Soderblom (CHI) was impenetrable on high-danger looks: 100% save percentage on five of them, finishing 27–31 (0.871 SV%). C. DeSmith (DAL) posted 16–19 (0.842 SV%, -0.83 vs expected).

Chicago overperformed its xG by 0.83 goals, scoring three on 2.17 expected. Dallas wasted their scoring chances: 0–5 on high-danger attempts. Both teams scored twice off the rush, but Dallas burned 31 chances to Chicago's 20 — a gap that highlighted Dallas's inefficiency from their best spots.

Miro Heiskanen's backhander from the slot at 00:22 of overtime ended it.

Three Stars:

  • #91 F. Nazar (CHI) — 2A in 18:48
  • #86 T. Teravainen (CHI) — 2A in 18:22
  • #22 M. Bourque (DAL) — 1G, 1A in 17:20
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 8
CHI
3
DAL
4

Stars run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.2 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
2.17
DAL
3.92
36% of the chances64%

The board read CHI 3, DAL 4. The chances read CHI 2.2, DAL 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
+0.1
goals above expected
DAL3.92 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.17 expected · 3 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 06:59CHIT. Bertuzzi1–0
  2. P1 08:41CHIS. Rinzel2–0
  3. P1 16:40DALN. Bastian2–1
  4. P3 00:42DALM. Bourque2–2
  5. P3 09:40DALJ. HryckowianPP2–3
  6. P3 18:40CHIC. BedardPP3–3
  7. OT 00:22DALM. Heiskanen3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
29 shots
3
Final
71 shots
DAL
42 shots
4
CHI attackDAL attack
CHI DAL Goal
29
shots · 3 in
42
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIDAL
0 / 2
0.47 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.40 xG
2 / 13
1.40 xG
Medium
4 / 20
2.11 xG
1 / 23
0.30 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.42 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 0 of 2, DAL 0 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
A. Soderblom
−0.1
CHI · 27/31
D-
C. DeSmith
−0.8
DAL · 16/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars 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 6–13
  1. 06:59CHIT. Bertuzzi(A. Levshunov, F. Nazar)1–0
  2. 08:41CHIS. Rinzel(T. Teravainen, O. Moore)2–0
  3. 16:40DALN. Bastian(L. Bichsel, O. Bäck)2–1
2ndshots 4–9no goals
    3rdshots 9–8
    1. 00:42DALM. Bourque(M. Bunting)2–2
    2. 09:40DALJ. Hryckowianpower play(M. Bourque, E. Lindell)2–3
    3. 18:40CHIC. Bedardpower play(T. Teravainen, F. Nazar)3–3
    OTshots 0–1
    1. 00:22DALM. Heiskanen(M. Duchene)3–4

    score reads CHI–DAL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.92
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    0.984
    DAL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    62.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.17Expected goals3.92
    DAL 64% of the chance quality
    19Shots on goal31
    2High-danger chances5
    38All attempts (Corsi)64
    Adjusted for score: CHI 35% · DAL 65%
    Faceoffs · DAL won79%off79%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI0 / 2 · 0.47 xG
    DAL0 / 5 · 1.40 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI2 / 13 · 1.40 xG
    DAL4 / 20 · 2.11 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI1 / 23 · 0.30 xG
    DAL0 / 39 · 0.42 xG

    DAL went 4-for-20 from medium danger on 2.11 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    3 G · 2.17 xG · +0.8
    DAL
    4 G · 3.92 xG · +0.1
    012345

    CHI finished +0.8 against expected, DAL +0.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    SNAP2/17
    TIP IN1/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    SLAP0/2
    WRIST0/1
    DEFLECTED0/2
    BETWEEN LEGS0/1
    OTHER0/9
    DAL
    SNAP0/20
    TIP IN1/8
    BACKHAND3/6
    SLAP0/5
    WRIST0/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BETWEEN LEGS0/0
    OTHER0/22
    CHI
    DAL
    Off the rush
    2 G on 20
    1.73 xG
    2 G on 31
    3.29 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.23 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.45 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: CHI went 2-for-17, DAL 0-for-20. CHI 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
    A. Soderblom
    CHI · 27/31 · .871
    -0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.4+1.4
    Medium4/202.1-1.9
    Low0/390.4+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

    C. DeSmith
    DAL · 16/19 · .842
    -0.8
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.5+0.5
    Medium2/131.4-0.6
    Low1/230.3-0.7

    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

    71 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    29 shots
    3
    Final
    71 shots
    DAL
    42 shots
    4
    CHI attackDAL attack
    CHI DAL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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
    F. Nazar
    #91 · C · CHI
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:48 on ice · +1
    T. Teravainen
    #86 · C · CHI
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:22 on ice · +3
    M. Bourque
    #22 · C · DAL
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:20 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Mar 8
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:13 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 backs Dallas: 60% win probability in a projected 2.2–2.8 environment for Chicago. The Stars' dominance in underlying play explains the gap, but Dallas also carries regression risk in a way Chicago does not.

    Dallas owns the shot quality battle. At 5v5, the Stars hold 51.0% expected goals share to Chicago's 42.0%. The teams' Corsi numbers are nearly identical—Dallas at 47.0%, Chicago at 46.0%—meaning the gap isn't about shot volume but shot danger. Dallas is manufacturing better chances from similar possession.

    Form tilts Dallas's way. The Stars are 9-0-1 in their last ten games, while Chicago sits at minus-12 goal differential over the same stretch. That gap suggests Dallas's underlying play is converting and Chicago's is leaking.

    The catch is PDO. Dallas runs a 1.024 mark, meaning the Stars are outscoring expectation—luck inflated, with regression the likely outcome. Chicago's 0.996 PDO sits near perfect expectation, meaning their underlying play and results are aligned.

    Goaltending adds volatility. Both J. Oettinger and A. Soderblom arrive on back-to-backs, creating a real risk of backup starts or fatigued starters on either side.

    Dallas's Jason Robertson is the tier-one threat. At 0.96 expected goals per 60, 25 goals, and 21 assists, Robertson generates elite volume; his 12.4% shooting converts expected chances into goals at a league-best clip. Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8 goals) adds depth, though his 7.6% shooting lacks Robertson's potency.

    Chicago fields Tyler Bertuzzi at 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals, 15 assists, and 18.0% shooting—aggressive conversion for his volume. Connor Bedard's 17 goals and 27 assists at 0.82 xG/60 reveal an 11.8% shooting rate, meaning his assist totals mask lower-volume finish. Bertuzzi carries 7 high-danger goals versus Robertson's 2, a gap that reflects different scoring patterns.

    Anton Frondell marks Chicago's defensive weakness; Tyler Myers occupies that spot for Dallas.

    The model's edge is defensible. PDO regression and goaltending risk compress Dallas's advantage. This game should follow the projection, but volatility is real.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DAL 60%
    59%
    DAL
    Model favorite
    41%
    59%
    CHI50DAL

    DAL by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.2–2.8 DAL; 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 →DAL
    42.0%51.0%
    46.0%47.0%
    2.172.36
    2.942.29
    1.842.07
    2.411.68
    0.9961.024

    DAL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 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
    CHI
    2-6-2
    -12 GD · 1d rest
    DAL
    9-0-1
    +18 GD · 1d rest
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.024
    DAL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • A. Soderblom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Stars are the hotter team by points pace (9-0-1 in their last 10).
    • The Blackhawks are underwater at -12 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
    CHI
    Expected in goal
    A. Soderblom
    back-to-back.800 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.

    DAL
    Expected in goal
    J. Oettinger
    back-to-back.862 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
    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
    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