Motion-blurred skater in a New York Islanders sweater
Breakdown · NYI at STL

Islanders edge the Blues in overtime

The verdict · earned

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

NYI 4 · STL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:40 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

New York's overtime victory masked an emphatic underlying advantage. The Islanders controlled 59% of expected goals (5.25–3.60) and dominated shot volume (50–23), yet J. Hofer's exceptional performance kept the game within reach. His 0.939 save percentage exceeded expectation by 2.25 goals — nearly enough to flip the result single-handedly.

The Islanders generated higher-quality looks than their volume suggests. They recorded 10 high-danger chances to St. Louis's 7, and their power play operated at elite efficiency: 2 goals on 16 shots (1.44 expected goals). Yet they underperformed their xG by 1.25, scoring just 4 on 5.25 — a rare moment where New York's offense lagged its opportunities.

St. Louis cashed in on the rush with uncommon sharpness: 3 goals on 27 attempts. New York managed only 2 on 37, squandering a volume advantage in transition. The Blues crashed the net effectively for rebounds, converting none of three opportunities. New York found the net once across 10 rebound chances — a ratio that, combined with Hofer's brilliance, nearly erased the quality gap.

M. Barzal's wrist shot from the high slot at 2:11 of overtime ended it. I. Sorokin's performance (20/23 saves, +0.60 vs expected) was solid but secondary. The Islanders' underlying control left little doubt about the outcome.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 10
NYI
4
STL
3

Islanders edge the Blues in overtime

Chances 5.3 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Islanders earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NYI
5.25
STL
3.60
59% of the chances41%

The board read NYI 4, STL 3. The chances read NYI 5.3, STL 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NYI
−1.3
goals above expected
NYI5.25 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
STL3.60 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 04:06STLP. Broberg0–1
  2. P2 09:10STLD. Holloway0–2
  3. P2 10:37STLJ. Snuggerud0–3
  4. P2 17:50NYIJ. Pageau1–3
  5. P3 05:52NYIC. RitchiePP2–3
  6. P3 06:52NYIB. HorvatPP3–3
  7. OT 02:11NYIM. Barzal4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NYI
62 shots
4
Final
95 shots
STL
33 shots
3
NYI attackSTL attack
NYI STL Goal
62
shots · 4 in
33
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NYISTL
2 / 10
2.24 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.68 xG
2 / 21
2.13 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.60 xG
0 / 43
0.88 xG
Low
1 / 24
0.32 xG

The Islanders buried 2 of 10 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Hofer
+2.3
STL · 46/49
B
I. Sorokin
+0.6
NYI · 20/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Islanders edge the Blues 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 17–5
  1. 04:06STLP. Broberg(J. Snuggerud, R. Thomas)0–1
2ndshots 12–9
  1. 09:10STLD. Holloway(C. Fowler, J. Snuggerud)0–2
  2. 10:37STLJ. Snuggerud(R. Thomas, T. Lindstein)0–3
  3. 17:50NYIJ. Pageau(M. Schaefer, M. Barzal)1–3
3rdshots 18–8
  1. 05:52NYIC. Ritchiepower play2–3
  2. 06:52NYIB. Horvatpower play(C. Ritchie, M. Barzal)3–3
OTshots 3–1
  1. 02:11NYIM. Barzal(B. Schenn, T. DeAngelo)4–3

score reads NYI–STL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.25
NYI chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
0.987
NYI puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
62.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.25Expected goals3.60
NYI 59% of the chance quality
50Shots on goal23
10High-danger chances7
74All attempts (Corsi)45
Adjusted for score: NYI 66% · STL 34%
Faceoffs · STL won46%off39%neu64%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NYI2 / 10 · 2.24 xG
STL1 / 7 · 1.68 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NYI2 / 21 · 2.13 xG
STL1 / 14 · 1.60 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NYI0 / 43 · 0.88 xG
STL1 / 24 · 0.32 xG

NYI went 0-for-43 from low danger on 0.88 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NYI
4 G · 5.25 xG · -1.3
STL
3 G · 3.60 xG · -0.6
0123456

NYI finished -1.3 against expected, STL -0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NYI
WRIST2/37
SNAP1/8
BACKHAND0/7
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/3
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER1/13
STL
WRIST1/19
SNAP1/5
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN1/2
SLAP0/1
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/12
NYI
STL
Off the rush
2 G on 37
3.03 xG
3 G on 27
3.08 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 10
1.36 xG
0 G on 3
0.45 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NYI went 2-for-37, STL 1-for-19. STL 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
I. Sorokin
NYI · 20/23 · .870
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.7+0.7
Medium1/141.6+0.6
Low1/240.3-0.7

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

J. Hofer
STL · 46/49 · .939
+2.3
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/102.2+0.2
Medium2/212.1+0.1
Low0/430.9+0.9

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

95 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NYI
62 shots
4
Final
95 shots
STL
33 shots
3
NYI attackSTL attack
NYI STL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NYI left, STL 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
M. Barzal
#13 · C · NYI
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 21:21 on ice · +1
J. Snuggerud
#21 · R · STL
1 G · 2 A · 8 SOG · 19:46 on ice · +2
R. Thomas
#18 · C · STL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:21 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 10
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:37 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 2.4 to 2.6 goal range with the Blues at 54% win probability—essentially a coin flip. Both teams generate nearly identical shot volume: the Islanders produce 48.0% expected goals and 49.0% Corsi at even strength, while the Blues post 49.0% expected goals and 48.0% Corsi. The Blues' PDO edge (1.000 to 0.993) hints at slightly better conversion luck, though the margin is negligible.

J. Hofer's back-to-back assignment is worth monitoring; the Blues may deploy the backup to manage minutes.

The Islanders lean on Anders Lee, whose 1.20 expected goals per 60 minutes have yielded just 9 goals at 6.4% shooting—heavy variance. He has two high-danger goals alongside 20 assists. Bo Horvat represents their efficiency weapon: 18 goals and 10 assists on 12.8% shooting with three high-danger conversions from 0.87 xG/60.

The Blues counter with Jimmy Snuggerud, who generates 0.86 xG/60 with 15 goals, 22 assists, and two high-danger goals on 11.9% shooting. Dylan Holloway operates in a similar expected-goals band (0.82 xG/60) but has been more prolific: 13 goals, 24 assists, and one high-danger goal on 10.8% shooting.

A peculiarity emerges: both teams have converted zero high-danger chances and generated zero rebound goals. Either these defenses are impenetrably elite or these samples are artificially constrained. New York shields Alexander Romanov's defensive shortcomings; the Blues lean on Snuggerud despite his defensive liability. Nothing analytically separates these teams. The back-to-back and goaltending coin flip become the tiebreakers.

Data: MoneyPuck 5v5 models, NHL API

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 54%
54%
STL
Model favorite
46%
54%
NYI50STL

STL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NYI 2.4–2.6 STL; 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
NYI← edge
edge →STL
48.0%49.0%
49.0%48.0%
2.482.34
2.692.40
1.782.00
1.942.12
0.9931.000

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.993 vs 1.000) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NYI
6-4-0
-3 GD · 2d rest
STL
6-4-0
+7 GD · 1d rest
0.993
NYI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.000
STL 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
NYI
Expected in goal
I. Sorokin
2 days rest.968 last start
Backup Ilya Sorokin · +25.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

STL
Expected in goal
J. Hofer
back-to-back1.000 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.

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
NYI
Anders Lee9G 20A
1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh
Bo Horvat18G 10A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next