Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater
← Sun, Mar 22 · the slate
Breakdown · NSH at CHI

Predators run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTSun, Mar 22
NSHNashville Predators3CHIChicago Blackhawks2
The verdict · earned

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

NSH 3 · CHI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:26 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

S. Knight played the game of his life. The Blackhawks goaltender saved 1.98 goals above expected on 30/33 saves and 0.909 SV%, yet Nashville still won 3-2 in overtime—an indictment of how thoroughly the Predators dominated underneath.

Nashville controlled 61% of 5v5 expected goals (4.98–3.23), outshooting Chicago in both volume and quality. Chicago had 6 high-danger chances to Nashville's 10, at 0.058 xG per shot versus 0.096. The Blackhawks held 47% of shot attempts but got nothing premium. Better chances win.

Chicago's rush attack was the only area it punched above expectancy, converting 2 goals on 31 rush chances. Nashville, despite 4.98 expected goals, scored just 3—underperforming by 1.98. J. Saros (27/29, 0.931 SV%, +1.23 vs expected) was solid in net, but even elite goaltending couldn't explain why chance-creation stalled.

The answer: Filip Forsberg at 01:05 of overtime. His wrist shot from the doorstep broke the deadlock and gave Nashville the win its underlying play had earned. This game was a reminder that goaltending can mask process for one night—Knight stole it. But over time, controlling 61% of expected goals means you win. Nashville proved it, barely.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 22
NSH
3
CHI
2

Predators run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.0 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
4.98
CHI
3.23
61% of the chances39%

The board read NSH 3, CHI 2. The chances read NSH 5.0, CHI 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NSH
−2.0
goals above expected
NSH4.98 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI3.23 expected · 2 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. P2 04:34CHIN. Lardis0–1
  2. P2 06:31NSHF. Forsberg1–1
  3. P2 13:57CHIC. Bedard1–2
  4. P3 09:43NSHS. Stamkos2–2
  5. OT 01:05NSHF. Forsberg3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
46 shots
3
Final
90 shots
CHI
44 shots
2
NSH attackCHI attack
NSH CHI Goal
46
shots · 3 in
44
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHCHI
3 / 10
2.31 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.27 xG
0 / 16
2.06 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.43 xG
0 / 26
0.60 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.53 xG

The Predators buried 3 of 10 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Knight
+2.0
CHI · 30/33
B+
J. Saros
+1.2
NSH · 27/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Predators 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 9–10no goals
    2ndshots 14–12
    1. 04:34CHIN. Lardis(T. Bertuzzi, A. Vlasic)0–1
    2. 06:31NSHF. Forsberg(J. Marchessault)1–1
    3. 13:57CHIC. Bedard(R. Greene)1–2
    3rdshots 8–7
    1. 09:43NSHS. Stamkos(F. Forsberg, R. Josi)2–2
    OTshots 2–0
    1. 01:05NSHF. Forsberg3–2

    score reads NSH–CHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.98
    NSH chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.0
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.022
    NSH puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    48.1%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.98Expected goals3.23
    NSH 61% of the chance quality
    33Shots on goal29
    10High-danger chances6
    52All attempts (Corsi)56
    Adjusted for score: NSH 49% · CHI 51%
    Faceoffs · CHI won55%off40%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NSH3 / 10 · 2.31 xG
    CHI1 / 6 · 1.27 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NSH0 / 16 · 2.06 xG
    CHI1 / 16 · 1.43 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NSH0 / 26 · 0.60 xG
    CHI0 / 34 · 0.53 xG

    NSH went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 2.06 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NSH
    3 G · 4.98 xG · -2.0
    CHI
    2 G · 3.23 xG · -1.2
    0123456

    NSH finished -2.0 against expected, CHI -1.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NSH
    WRIST2/33
    SNAP1/3
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/3
    BAT0/1
    TIP IN0/0
    DEFLECTED0/2
    POKE0/2
    OTHER0/6
    CHI
    WRIST2/27
    SNAP0/8
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/1
    BAT0/2
    TIP IN0/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/12
    NSH
    CHI
    Off the rush
    1 G on 28
    2.94 xG
    2 G on 31
    2.58 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 7
    1.24 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.50 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 2-for-33, CHI 2-for-27. 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
    J. Saros
    NSH · 27/29 · .931
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.3+0.3
    Medium1/161.4+0.4
    Low0/340.5+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

    S. Knight
    CHI · 30/33 · .909
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger3/102.3-0.7
    Medium0/162.1+2.1
    Low0/260.6+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

    90 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NSH
    46 shots
    3
    Final
    90 shots
    CHI
    44 shots
    2
    NSH attackCHI attack
    NSH CHI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH left, CHI 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. Forsberg
    #9 · L · NSH
    2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:54 on ice · +2
    R. Josi
    #59 · D · NSH
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 27:27 on ice
    A. Vlasic
    #72 · D · CHI
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 26:34 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Mar 22
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:25 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 2.7–2.5 Nashville edge with the Predators at 54% win probability—as close to a pick'em as exists.

    Nashville owns the underlying play by a decisive margin. The Predators control 49.0% of 5v5 expected goals against Chicago's 42.0%, a gap that compounds across 60 minutes. They also drive play territorially, holding a 50.0% Corsi%, which means Chicago faces more puck pressure and fewer chances to build offense. This is foundational advantage territory.

    The Predators' shot quality should carry through the lineup. Zachary L'Heureux leads the charge at 0.85 xG/60, backed by a cold 16.0% shooting clip despite 4 goals. Filip Forsberg generates 0.80 xG/60 and has already banked 23 goals on a 13.6% shooting rate, with 4 high-danger tallies that signal finishing prowess. For Chicago, Tyler Bertuzzi matches L'Heureux's shot-generation rate at 0.85 xG/60 but has converted at 18.0%—higher volume relative to his underlying play. Connor Bedard, the proxy for Chicago's offensive ceiling, sits at 0.82 xG/60 with an 11.8% shooting percentage after 17 goals and 27 assists, a sign he's still hunting for more scoring touch despite the playmaking.

    The weakness in Chicago's structure remains the defensive liability at the back, where Anton Frondell represents a consistent leak. Nashville has its own vulnerability: Jonathan Marchessault's defensive footprint has been a recurring soft spot. Both teams operate with 0% high-danger and 0% rebound goal rates, suggesting reliance on primary chances and tight shot discipline.

    The 54% edge is thin, though the underlying numbers give Nashville the logic. Chicago's superior finishing keeps this game competitive, but possession and shot quality should prevail over a 60-minute span.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    NSH 54%
    54%
    NSH
    Model favorite
    54%
    46%
    NSH50CHI

    NSH by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NSH 2.7–2.5 CHI; 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
    NSH← edge
    edge →CHI
    49.0%42.0%
    50.0%46.0%
    2.482.17
    2.582.94
    1.841.84
    2.212.41
    0.9920.996

    NSH holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 vs 0.996) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    NSH
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    CHI
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.992
    NSH PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Predators own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Predators drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Predators own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Predators drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    NSH
    Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
    0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
    Filip Forsberg23G 17A
    0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page