Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
← Sat, Mar 14 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at VGK

Golden Knights shut out the Blackhawks, 4-0

FinalSat, Mar 14
CHIChicago Blackhawks0VGKVegas Golden Knights4
The verdict · earned

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

CHI 0 · VGK 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:15 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

A. Hill's goaltending sealed a rout. Vegas' goalie stopped 2.34 goals above expected, converting a controlled advantage into a shutout. Chicago underperformed their 2.34 expected goals by the same margin—the Blackhawks' offensive futility was met by Vegas' defensive excellence.

Vegas dominated underlying play. They controlled 66% of 5v5 expected goals (4.56–2.34), 60% of shot attempts (32–21), and 8–3 on high-danger chances. More tellingly, Vegas generated premium chances: 0.088 expected goals per shot versus Chicago's 0.052. They had both volume and precision.

Chicago created little of value. Zero goals on 2.34 expected goals—a chasm that in most games produces a closer result. They assembled three rebound opportunities and buried none. Vegas crashed the net with better discipline and got the bounces, converting one of five rebound chances. On the power play, Chicago never got a look. Vegas scored on 2 of 8 power-play shots, generating 1.48 expected goals to show the opportunities were legitimate.

The turning point arrived early in the second when P. Dorofeyev fired a wrist shot from the doorstep at 12:51. He finished with 2 goals and an assist in 15:08. M. Marner and M. Stone supplied 2 assists apiece, maintaining Vegas' pressure. Vegas was also lethal in transition, scoring 2 goals on 29 rush attempts.

S. Knight made 28 saves on 32 shots for Chicago (0.875 save percentage, 0.56 above expected). A. Hill's 21-for-21 night made the difference.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 14
CHI
0
VGK
4

Golden Knights shut out the Blackhawks, 4-0

Chances 2.3 – 4.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
2.34
VGK
4.56
34% of the chances66%

The board read CHI 0, VGK 4. The chances read CHI 2.3, VGK 4.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
−0.6
goals above expected
VGK4.56 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.34 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 2.3 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 08:33VGKP. DorofeyevPP0–1
  2. P1 11:35VGKR. Andersson0–2
  3. P1 12:00VGKK. Kolesar0–3
  4. P2 12:51VGKP. DorofeyevPP0–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
38 shots
0
Final
83 shots
VGK
45 shots
4
CHI attackVGK attack
CHI VGK Goal
38
shots · 0 in
45
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIVGK
0 / 3
0.59 xG
High danger
1 / 8
1.92 xG
0 / 10
1.10 xG
Medium
2 / 19
2.08 xG
0 / 32
0.64 xG
Low
1 / 25
0.55 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Hill
+2.3
VGK · 21/21
B
S. Knight
+0.6
CHI · 28/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights shut out the Blackhawks, 4-0

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 6–12
  1. 08:33VGKP. Dorofeyevpower play(M. Marner, M. Stone)0–1
  2. 11:35VGKR. Andersson(N. Hanifin, P. Dorofeyev)0–2
  3. 12:00VGKK. Kolesar(J. Lauzon, N. Dowd)0–3
2ndshots 6–11
  1. 12:51VGKP. Dorofeyevpower play(M. Stone, M. Marner)0–4
3rdshots 9–9no goals

    score reads CHI–VGK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.56
    VGK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.6
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.077
    VGK puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    53.6%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.34Expected goals4.56
    VGK 66% of the chance quality
    21Shots on goal32
    3High-danger chances8
    45All attempts (Corsi)52
    Adjusted for score: CHI 53% · VGK 47%
    Faceoffs · VGK won50%off47%neu39%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI0 / 3 · 0.59 xG
    VGK1 / 8 · 1.92 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI0 / 10 · 1.10 xG
    VGK2 / 19 · 2.08 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI0 / 32 · 0.64 xG
    VGK1 / 25 · 0.55 xG

    CHI went 0-for-10 from medium danger on 1.10 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    0 G · 2.34 xG · -2.3
    VGK
    4 G · 4.56 xG · -0.6
    012345

    CHI finished -2.3 against expected, VGK -0.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    WRIST0/17
    TIP IN0/5
    SNAP0/7
    SLAP0/6
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/7
    VGK
    WRIST2/20
    TIP IN1/12
    SNAP0/4
    SLAP1/4
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/7
    CHI
    VGK
    Off the rush
    0 G on 22
    1.66 xG
    2 G on 29
    3.28 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.25 xG
    1 G on 5
    0.85 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 0-for-17, VGK 2-for-20. VGK 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
    S. Knight
    CHI · 28/32 · .875
    +0.6
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/81.9+0.9
    Medium2/192.1+0.1
    Low1/250.6-0.5

    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

    A. Hill
    VGK · 21/21 · 1.000
    +2.3
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.6+0.6
    Medium0/101.1+1.1
    Low0/320.6+0.6

    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

    83 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    38 shots
    0
    Final
    83 shots
    VGK
    45 shots
    4
    CHI attackVGK attack
    CHI VGK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, VGK 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
    P. Dorofeyev
    #16 · R · VGK
    2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 15:08 on ice · +1
    M. Marner
    #93 · R · VGK
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 17:33 on ice · +1
    M. Stone
    #61 · R · VGK
    0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 15:31 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Mar 14
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:13 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

    Vegas has this one. The model projects a 2.1 - 2.9 result favoring the Golden Knights at 62% win probability, and the underlying fundamentals back it up.

    The Knights dominate territorially. They're at 54.0% expected goals at 5v5 against Chicago's 42.0%, controlling Corsi 52.0% to 46.0%. That dominance doesn't translate fully to goals—yet.

    The reason is PDO regression. Vegas sits at 0.983, converting fewer goals than their shot quality deserves. That's not sustainable; the positive correction is coming. Chicago's PDO at 0.996 sits closer to equilibrium, meaning their regression points down—fewer goals from the same looks.

    Chicago's offense rests on Tyler Bertuzzi (0.85 xG/60, 20 goals, 7 high-danger chances, 18.0% shooting) and Connor Bedard (0.82 xG/60, 17 goals, 5 high-danger chances, 11.8% shooting). The problem: they generate only 42.0% of the shot attempts at 5v5. Elite talent needs volume to matter.

    Vegas counters with Brandon Saad (0.91 xG/60, 3 goals) and Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5 goals). Both create dangerous looks—Saad at 4.1% shooting, Hertl at 4.3%—yet underperform their expected goal rates. When Vegas's PDO normalizes, these two benefit first.

    Both teams deploy goalies on back-to-backs. A. Hill and S. Knight are each candidates for reduced minutes or fatigue, which neither offense can exploit efficiently enough to overcome the five-point talent gap.

    Players to Watch

    Chicago

    • Tyler Bertuzzi — 0.85 xG/60, 20G 15A, 7 HD goals, 18.0% shooting
    • Connor Bedard — 0.82 xG/60, 17G 27A, 5 HD goals, 11.8% shooting

    Vegas

    • Brandon Saad — 0.91 xG/60, 3G 6A, 1 HD goal, 4.1% shooting
    • Tomas Hertl — 0.88 xG/60, 5G 17A, 1 HD goal, 4.3% shooting

    The model has Vegas at better-than-even odds because the fundamentals are decisively in their favor. When the PDO correction comes, the Knights cash.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    VGK 63%
    62%
    VGK
    Model favorite
    38%
    62%
    CHI50VGK

    VGK by 24 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.1–2.9 VGK; 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 →VGK
    42.0%54.0%
    46.0%52.0%
    2.172.52
    2.942.11
    1.842.12
    2.412.10
    0.9960.983

    VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.983) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CHI
    4-4-2
    -4 GD · 1d rest
    VGK
    4-6-0
    -2 GD · 1d rest
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.983
    VGK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • A. Hill is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CHI
    Expected in goal
    S. Knight
    back-to-back.935 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.

    VGK
    Expected in goal
    A. Hill
    back-to-back.923 last start
    Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 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
    VGK
    Brandon Saad3G 6A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
    Tomas Hertl5G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page