Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
← Fri, Mar 13 · the slate
Breakdown · EDM at STL

Blues steal one from the Oilers against the run of play

Final / OTFri, Mar 13
EDMEdmonton Oilers2STLSt. Louis Blues3
The verdict · stolen

The Blues stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.85–3.26 and won anyway.

EDM 2 · STL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:01 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

Edmonton dominated the underlying play and still lost. The Oilers finished with 4.85 expected goals to St. Louis's 3.26—a 60-40 split that should have buried the Blues, especially at 5v5 where they controlled 60% of xG. Instead, the Blues won 3-2 in overtime through a combination of goaltending fortune and timely execution.

C. Ingram's performance explains the gap. The Edmonton goalie saved just 22 of 25 shots (0.880 SV%), underperforming his expected save rate by 2.85 goals. J. Hofer, by contrast, was immaculate: 36 of 38 saves (0.947 SV%), performing 2.85 goals above expected. When one goalie plays at league average and the other makes three extra stops, a one-goal swing becomes plausible.

Both teams were lethal in specific areas. Edmonton converted 2 goals on 32 rush chances—efficient and dangerous. But neither team could finish in close. Each went 0 for 6 on high-danger chances, though C. Ingram stopped all six attempts cleanly (100% SV on HD). St. Louis created four rebound opportunities without converting any; Edmonton managed three.

The Oilers deserved better. Outshooting St. Louis 38-25, controlling the game's rhythm, and generating legitimate scoring chances—this was a robbery that came down to save percentage and one moment of timing.

Robert Thomas ended it at 04:51 of overtime with a wrist shot from the high slot, and the Blues walked away with a win they didn't build.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 13
EDM
2
STL
3

Blues steal one from the Oilers against the run of play

Chances 4.8 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
4.85
STL
3.26
60% of the chances40%

The board read EDM 2, STL 3. The chances read EDM 4.8, STL 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
−0.3
goals above expected
STL3.26 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM4.85 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Oilers left 2.9 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. P2 15:41EDMK. Kapanen1–0
  2. P3 09:56EDMC. McDavid2–0
  3. P3 12:22STLP. Suter2–1
  4. P3 16:14STLC. Fowler2–2
  5. OT 04:51STLR. Thomas2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
53 shots
2
Final
91 shots
STL
38 shots
3
EDM attackSTL attack
EDM STL Goal
53
shots · 2 in
38
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMSTL
0 / 6
1.98 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.38 xG
1 / 20
2.21 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.34 xG
1 / 39
0.65 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.54 xG

The Oilers went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Hofer
+2.9
STL · 36/38
B
C. Ingram
+0.3
EDM · 22/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues steal one from the Oilers against the run of play

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 7–6no goals
    2ndshots 11–5
    1. 15:41EDMK. Kapanen(L. Draisaitl, V. Podkolzin)1–0
    3rdshots 16–11
    1. 09:56EDMC. McDavid(M. Savoie, C. Ingram)2–0
    2. 12:22STLP. Suter(J. Berggren)2–1
    3. 16:14STLC. Fowler(O. Sundqvist)2–2
    OTshots 4–3
    1. 04:51STLR. Thomas(C. Fowler, J. Kyrou)2–3

    score reads EDM–STL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.26
    STL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.3
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.026
    STL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    44.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.85Expected goals3.26
    EDM 60% of the chance quality
    38Shots on goal25
    6High-danger chances6
    65All attempts (Corsi)53
    Adjusted for score: EDM 53% · STL 47%
    Faceoffs · STL won32%off62%neu59%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    EDM0 / 6 · 1.98 xG
    STL0 / 6 · 1.38 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    EDM1 / 20 · 2.21 xG
    STL2 / 12 · 1.34 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    EDM1 / 39 · 0.65 xG
    STL1 / 35 · 0.54 xG

    EDM went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.98 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    EDM
    2 G · 4.85 xG · -2.9
    STL
    3 G · 3.26 xG · -0.3
    0123456

    EDM finished -2.9 against expected, STL -0.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    EDM
    WRIST2/40
    BACKHAND0/4
    SLAP0/4
    SNAP0/1
    TIP IN0/3
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/12
    STL
    WRIST3/26
    BACKHAND0/4
    SLAP0/3
    SNAP0/4
    TIP IN0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/15
    EDM
    STL
    Off the rush
    2 G on 32
    3.79 xG
    1 G on 25
    2.38 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.50 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.39 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 2-for-40, STL 3-for-26. EDM 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
    C. Ingram
    EDM · 22/25 · .880
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.4+1.4
    Medium2/121.3-0.7
    Low1/350.5-0.5

    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 · 36/38 · .947
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/62.0+2.0
    Medium1/202.2+1.2
    Low1/390.7-0.3

    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

    91 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    EDM
    53 shots
    2
    Final
    91 shots
    STL
    38 shots
    3
    EDM attackSTL attack
    EDM STL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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
    C. Fowler
    #17 · D · STL
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:18 on ice · +2
    C. McDavid
    #97 · C · EDM
    1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 26:28 on ice
    R. Thomas
    #18 · C · STL
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:41 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Mar 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:00 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 is indifferent: EDM 2.5 – 2.5 STL, Blues at 50% win probability. This is a literal pick'em.

    The Blues have the momentum. They're 6-3-1 in their last 10, running a pace that favors them in the short term.

    But the Oilers own the play on the ice. Edmonton has generated 52.0% of the expected goals at 5v5 compared to St. Louis's 49.0%, and their Corsi split (50.0% vs 48.0%) confirms they're controlling possession and shot quality. What makes this meaningful: the Oilers' underlying advantage is real, but their 0.982 PDO means they're burying shots at a rate below equilibrium. They're due for regression—and regression here means production catches up to the play.

    The goaltending question tilts toward Edmonton. J. Binnington is on a back-to-back, which creates operational uncertainty for St. Louis: either they roll with a fatigued starter or pivot to the bench.

    The Oilers' offensive punch is anchored by two elite players. Zach Hyman is running 1.23 expected goals per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 13 assists; his 13.0% shooting rate shows he's not just getting volume—he's finishing. Connor McDavid sits at 25 goals and 33 assists with 5 high-danger goals on a 0.92 xG/60 clip; his 13.7% shooting rate is a floor, not a ceiling.

    St. Louis counters with depth scoring. Jimmy Snuggerud (15 goals, 0.86 xG/60, 11.9% shooting) and Dylan Holloway (13 goals, 0.82 xG/60, 10.8% shooting) are both getting real chances and converting at healthy rates. The Blues' 1.000 PDO suggests they're sustaining offensive output—whether through superior goaltending, luck, or both.

    The tension is clean: Edmonton controls the underlying game but hasn't cashed in yet; St. Louis is hot and efficient but playing against the odds of the shot matrix. A flip of the coin actually captures this.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    STL 50%
    50%
    STL
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    EDM50STL

    STL by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.5–2.5 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
    EDM← edge
    edge →STL
    52.0%49.0%
    50.0%48.0%
    2.642.34
    2.472.40
    2.132.00
    2.292.12
    0.9821.000

    EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 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
    EDM
    4-6-0
    -2 GD · 2d rest
    STL
    6-3-1
    +9 GD · 1d rest
    0.982
    EDM PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.000
    STL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • J. Binnington is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Blues are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    EDM
    Expected in goal
    C. Ingram
    2 days rest.889 last start
    Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    STL
    Expected in goal
    J. Binnington
    back-to-back.969 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
    EDM
    Zach Hyman14G 13A
    1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
    Connor McDavid25G 33A
    0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% 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

    Back to the front page