Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater

Breakdown · STL at VAN

Blues run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Mar 21

STLSt. Louis Blues3 VANVancouver Canucks1

The verdict · earned

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

STL 3 · VAN 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:22 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

The 3-1 scoreline masked St. Louis's control. The Blues dominated expected goals 61–39 (3.36–2.12) and won high-danger chances 4–1, painting a starker picture than the final score.

J. Binnington recorded +1.12 against expected; K. Lankinen, +1.36. Yet the Canucks' shortfalls in shot volume (15–21) and quality chances determined the outcome. Vancouver underperformed its xG by 1.12, managing one goal from 2.12 expected. Three rebound opportunities went unconverted.

Jordan Kyrou's backhander from the high slot (P3, 19:12) was the game's turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 21

STL

VAN

Blues run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.4 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blues earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

3.36

VAN

2.12

61% of the chances39%

The board read STL 3, VAN 1. The chances read STL 3.4, VAN 2.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

STL

−0.4

goals above expected

STL3.36 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN2.12 expected · 1 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

P2 10:17STLP. Suter1–0
P2 11:36STLP. Buchnevich2–0
P3 08:32VANF. HronekPP2–1
P3 19:12STLJ. KyrouEN3–1

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

STL

36 shots

Final

58 shots

VAN

22 shots

STL VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLVAN

1 / 4

1.39 xG

High danger

0 / 1

0.33 xG

1 / 15

1.49 xG

Medium

0 / 12

1.52 xG

1 / 35

0.48 xG

Low

1 / 24

0.27 xG

High-danger looks: STL 1 of 4, VAN 0 of 1.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

B+

K. Lankinen

+1.4

VAN · 18/20

B+

J. Binnington

+1.1

STL · 14/15

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blues run the Canucks 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 5–4no goals

2ndshots 11–6

10:17STLP. Suter(R. Thomas, D. Holloway)1–0
11:36STLP. Buchnevich(P. Broberg, L. Mailloux)2–0

3rdshots 5–5

08:32VANF. Hronekpower play(E. Pettersson, M. Rossi)2–1
19:12STLJ. Kyrouempty net(P. Buchnevich, L. Mailloux)3–1

score reads STL–VAN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.36

STL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.4

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.028

STL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

59.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.36Expected goals2.12

STL 61% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal15

4High-danger chances1

54All attempts (Corsi)37

Adjusted for score: STL 56% · VAN 44%

Faceoffs · VAN won64%off75%neu65%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL1 / 4 · 1.39 xG

VAN0 / 1 · 0.33 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL1 / 15 · 1.49 xG

VAN0 / 12 · 1.52 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL1 / 35 · 0.48 xG

VAN1 / 24 · 0.27 xG

VAN went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.52 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

3 G · 3.36 xG · -0.4

VAN

1 G · 2.12 xG · -1.1

01234

STL finished -0.4 against expected, VAN -1.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

SNAP1/27

TIP IN0/2

WRIST0/4

SLAP0/1

BACKHAND1/1

DEFLECTED1/1

OTHER0/18

VAN

SNAP1/15

TIP IN0/3

WRIST0/0

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/15

STL

VAN

Off the rush

1 G on 25

2.50 xG

0 G on 14

1.28 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 1

0.67 xG

0 G on 3

0.50 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: STL went 1-for-27, VAN 1-for-15.

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 · 14/15 · .933

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.3+0.3

Medium0/121.5+1.5

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

K. Lankinen

VAN · 18/20 · .900

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.4+0.4

Medium1/151.5+0.5

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

58 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

36 shots

Final

58 shots

VAN

22 shots

STL VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, VAN 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

L. Mailloux

#23 · D · STL

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:59 on ice · +1

P. Buchnevich

#89 · L · STL

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 16:42 on ice · +1

F. Hronek

#17 · D · VAN

1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 26:28 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 21

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:20 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 2.6 goals for St. Louis and 2.4 for Vancouver, with the Blues at 52% win probability—as close to a pick'em as the numbers produce.

St. Louis enters hotter. The Blues are 6-2-2 in their last 10 games, while Vancouver carries a -14 goal differential over the same span. The underlying play favors St. Louis decisively: 49.0% expected goals at 5v5 versus Vancouver's 44.0%, with a 48.0% Corsis% edge as well.

Vancouver's counter-narrative sits in their PDO. At 0.974, the Canucks are running cold—mathematically due for positive regression. They're losing more than their underlying play would suggest.

K. Lankinen arrives on a back-to-back; watch for either a backup start or a tired starter in goal for Vancouver.

Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15 goals, 22 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 11.9% shooting) and Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, 24 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 10.8% shooting) carry St. Louis's offensive load. For Vancouver, Filip Chytil (1.03 xG/60, 3 goals, 0 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 15.0% shooting) is unavailable after 47 days out. Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13 goals, 11 assists, 3 high-danger goals, 11.8% shooting) becomes the Canucks' secondary option.

Both teams register 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate—suggesting minimal second-chance play for either offense. St. Louis's defensive weakness is Jimmy Snuggerud; Vancouver's is Victor Mancini.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 52%

52%

STL

Model favorite

52%

48%

STL50VAN

STL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 2.6–2.4 VAN; 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

STL← edge

edge →VAN

49.0%44.0%

48.0%46.0%

2.342.22

2.402.81

2.001.60

2.122.56

1.0000.974

STL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.974) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

STL

6-2-2

+6 GD · 2d rest

VAN

3-6-1

-14 GD · 1d rest

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.974

VAN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Blues own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Blues own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Blues are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 in their last 10).
The Canucks are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

STL

Expected in goal

J. Hofer

2 days rest.968 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

VAN

Expected in goal

K. Lankinen

back-to-back.806 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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

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

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page