Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
Breakdown · SJS at STL

Blues edge the Sharks in overtime

The verdict · stolen

The Blues stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.92–2.57 and won anyway.

SJS 1 · STL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:57 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

St. Louis stole this one. The Sharks carried the underlying play—2.92 expected goals to 2.57—yet fell 2-1 in overtime on Dylan Holloway's backhander from the doorstep at 04:57. San Jose's failure to finish was staggering: they underperformed their xG by 1.92 goals, meaning they squandered multiple quality chances.

The Blues held 48% of shot attempts (23–25 on goal), the slighter possession edge in a tight game. High-danger chances were split evenly at 4–4, but what mattered was execution: St. Louis buried 2 of 4 high-danger chances (50%), while San Jose couldn't convert.

Goaltending was the critical margin. J. Hofer (STL) saved 1.92 goals above expected on 25 shots. Y. Askarov (SJS) was 11 for 11 through regulation, but A. Nedeljkovic's relief appearance fell short: 0.66 worse than expected on 12 shots.

Dylan Holloway's speed in overtime settled it. The Blues found seams the Sharks' defense couldn't contain, a pattern that defined their efficiency: 2 goals on 21 rush chances, cashing in on transition play when San Jose was stretched thin.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 26
SJS
1
STL
2

Blues edge the Sharks in overtime

Chances 2.9 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
2.92
STL
2.57
53% of the chances47%

The board read SJS 1, STL 2. The chances read SJS 2.9, STL 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
−0.6
goals above expected
STL2.57 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS2.92 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sharks left 1.9 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 17:19STLD. Dvorsky0–1
  2. P3 05:04SJSA. Wennberg1–1
  3. OT 04:57STLD. Holloway1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
37 shots
1
Final
71 shots
STL
34 shots
2
SJS attackSTL attack
SJS STL Goal
37
shots · 1 in
34
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSSTL
0 / 4
0.94 xG
High danger
2 / 4
0.93 xG
1 / 13
1.46 xG
Medium
0 / 9
1.17 xG
0 / 44
0.52 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.47 xG

The Sharks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
Y. Askarov
+2.6
SJS · 11/11
A
J. Hofer
+1.9
STL · 24/25
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues edge the Sharks 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 9–6no goals
    2ndshots 6–11
    1. 17:19STLD. Dvorsky(D. Holloway, J. Snuggerud)0–1
    3rdshots 8–4
    1. 05:04SJSA. Wennberg(W. Eklund, K. Sherwood)1–1
    OTshots 2–2
    1. 04:57STLD. Holloway(P. Broberg)1–2

    score reads SJS–STL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.57
    STL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.6
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.024
    STL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    45.0%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.92Expected goals2.57
    SJS 53% of the chance quality
    25Shots on goal23
    4High-danger chances4
    61All attempts (Corsi)50
    Adjusted for score: SJS 56% · STL 44%
    Faceoffs · STL won59%off60%neu55%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    SJS0 / 4 · 0.94 xG
    STL2 / 4 · 0.93 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    SJS1 / 13 · 1.46 xG
    STL0 / 9 · 1.17 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    SJS0 / 44 · 0.52 xG
    STL0 / 37 · 0.47 xG

    STL went 0-for-9 from medium danger on 1.17 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    SJS
    1 G · 2.92 xG · -1.9
    STL
    2 G · 2.57 xG · -0.6
    01234

    SJS finished -1.9 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
    SJS
    WRIST1/22
    SLAP0/7
    TIP IN0/4
    SNAP0/0
    BACKHAND0/3
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/24
    STL
    WRIST0/18
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN0/3
    SNAP1/6
    BACKHAND1/2
    POKE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/16
    SJS
    STL
    Off the rush
    1 G on 23
    2.24 xG
    2 G on 21
    2.01 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.15 xG
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 1-for-22, STL 0-for-18. STL 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
    Y. Askarov
    SJS · 11/11 · 1.000
    +2.6
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/40.9-1.1
    Medium0/91.2+1.2
    Low0/370.5+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

    A. Nedeljkovic
    SJS · 10/12 · .833
    +0.6
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/40.9-1.1
    Medium0/91.2+1.2
    Low0/370.5+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 · 24/25 · .960
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium1/131.5+0.5
    Low0/440.5+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

    71 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    SJS
    37 shots
    1
    Final
    71 shots
    STL
    34 shots
    2
    SJS attackSTL attack
    SJS STL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS 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
    D. Holloway
    #81 · L · STL
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:54 on ice · +2
    P. Broberg
    #6 · D · STL
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:30 on ice · +2
    A. Wennberg
    #21 · C · SJS
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:37 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:55 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

    This looks like the closest thing to a coin flip in the NHL tonight. The model projects San Jose and St. Louis exchanging 2.4 to 2.6 goals apiece, with the Blues getting barely a tilt at 54% win probability—so marginal an edge you might as well call it even.

    On the surface, St. Louis has a clear narrative: they're 7-1-2 over their last 10 and humming. San Jose is drowning, -17 in goal differential across the same span. But the underlying numbers refuse to declare a winner. At 5v5, the Blues lead in expected goals (49.0% xG% vs. 48.0%) and shot differential (48.0% Corsi% vs. 47.0%), but both edges are inside the margin of noise. The PDO readings—St. Louis at 1.000, San Jose at 0.998—are so close they're statistical twins. St. Louis's recent form might reflect run-of-luck parity, not a fundamental gap.

    Talent-wise, the matchups tilt into murky territory. San Jose leans on Pavol Regenda, who's averaging 1.10 xG per 60 minutes with 5 goals and 1 assist, including 2 high-danger goals at a 16.1% shooting rate. Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6G 8A) provides secondary punch. St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud at 0.86 xG/60 (15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting) and Dylan Holloway, close behind at 0.82 xG/60 with 13 goals and 24 assists (1 HD goal, 10.8% shooting). The Blues have more prolific goal-getters on the sheet, but Regenda's efficiency is San Jose's sharpest weapon.

    The other variable: both J. Hofer and A. Nedeljkovic are on back-to-backs, which raises the specter of a tired starter or an unexpected bench appearance. Neither team has a rest advantage, and both are gambling on whether their designated starter will be sharp or run-down. If either gets pulled early, momentum swings hard. If both hold, the game likely stays in that knife's-edge zone the model has already identified.

    Take the 54% Blues probability if you need a number, but don't mistake a slight lean for conviction. This is the sort of game where the team that gets two clean looks and converts wins 3-1. The team that doesn't loses by the same margin. Pick your player, pick your starting goalie, and hope the puck bounces right—because the math sure isn't calling it.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    STL 54%
    54%
    STL
    Model favorite
    46%
    54%
    SJS50STL

    STL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 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
    SJS← edge
    edge →STL
    48.0%49.0%
    47.0%48.0%
    2.332.34
    2.562.40
    1.992.00
    2.322.12
    0.9981.000

    STL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 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
    SJS
    2-6-2
    -17 GD · 1d rest
    STL
    7-1-2
    +11 GD · 1d rest
    0.998
    SJS 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.
    • A. Nedeljkovic is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Blues are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
    • The Sharks are underwater at -17 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    SJS
    Expected in goal
    A. Nedeljkovic
    back-to-back.684 last start
    Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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.

    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
    SJS
    Pavol Regenda5G 1A
    1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
    Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% 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