Breakdown · CHI at NYR

Rangers run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalFri, Mar 27

CHIChicago Blackhawks1 NYRNew York Rangers6

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 1 · NYR 6

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:12 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 Rangers' 6-1 win looked inevitable by the underlying numbers: 69% of 5v5 expected goals (5.08–2.29). The specifics revealed uneven variance.

D. Garand posted a 0.964 save percentage, +1.29 from expected, masking an odd reality: NYR converted 0 of 7 high-danger chances. They scored their six goals elsewhere—four off the rush and one from a rebound opportunity. This pattern suggested efficiency through volume and positioning rather than from prime scoring areas.

The Blackhawks surrendered both volume and quality. NYR held 58% of shot attempts (38–28). A. Soderblom finished at 0.842 SV%, −0.92 from expected, though he stood firm on 7 high-danger chances (100%). The divide: Chicago generated moments but no momentum, while New York was lethal off the rush (4 goals on 31 chances) and crashed the net for a converting edge (8 rebound opportunities, 1 converted vs. 3 and 0).

New York's shot quality (0.075 xG/shot) far exceeded Chicago's (0.047). The gap in volume and efficiency compounded relentlessly.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 27

CHI

NYR

Rangers run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.3 – 5.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Rangers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

2.29

NYR

5.08

31% of the chances69%

The board read CHI 1, NYR 6. The chances read CHI 2.3, NYR 5.1.

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

Luck check

NYR

+0.9

goals above expected

NYR5.08 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI2.29 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

P1 17:34CHIN. Lardis1–0
P1 18:32NYRJ. Miller1–1
P2 05:24NYRM. Robertson1–2
P2 08:20NYRA. Sykora1–3
P2 16:07NYRJ. Brodzinski1–4
P3 13:17NYRA. LafrenièrePP1–5
P3 16:00NYRJ. Brodzinski1–6

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

Where the shots came from

CHI

39 shots

Final

98 shots

NYR

59 shots

CHI NYR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHINYR

0 / 3

0.63 xG

High danger

0 / 7

1.58 xG

1 / 13

1.07 xG

Medium

5 / 24

2.72 xG

0 / 33

0.59 xG

Low

1 / 37

0.78 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

B+

D. Garand

+1.3

NYR · 27/28

D-

A. Soderblom

−0.9

CHI · 32/38

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Rangers 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 11–15

17:34CHIN. Lardis(T. Bertuzzi, A. Vlasic)1–0
18:32NYRJ. Miller(C. Sheary, B. Schneider)1–1

2ndshots 4–16

05:24NYRM. Robertson(J. Miller)1–2
08:20NYRA. Sykora(W. Cuylle, V. Trocheck)1–3
16:07NYRJ. Brodzinski(W. Borgen, J. Chmelar)1–4

3rdshots 13–7

13:17NYRA. Lafrenièrepower play(A. Fox, J. Miller)1–5
16:00NYRJ. Brodzinski(T. Raddysh, D. Fortescue)1–6

score reads CHI–NYR

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.08

NYR chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.9

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.068

NYR puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

58.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.29Expected goals5.08

NYR 69% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal38

3High-danger chances7

49All attempts (Corsi)68

Adjusted for score: CHI 46% · NYR 54%

Faceoffs · NYR won60%off64%neu56%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI0 / 3 · 0.63 xG

NYR0 / 7 · 1.58 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI1 / 13 · 1.07 xG

NYR5 / 24 · 2.72 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI0 / 33 · 0.59 xG

NYR1 / 37 · 0.78 xG

NYR went 5-for-24 from medium danger on 2.72 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

1 G · 2.29 xG · -1.3

NYR

6 G · 5.08 xG · +0.9

01234567

CHI finished -1.3 against expected, NYR +0.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

WRIST1/15

SNAP0/10

SLAP0/8

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/10

NYR

WRIST1/34

SNAP3/6

SLAP0/7

TIP IN1/7

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED1/2

POKE0/2

OTHER0/9

CHI

NYR

Off the rush

1 G on 22

1.89 xG

4 G on 31

2.88 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.09 xG

1 G on 8

1.14 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-15, NYR 1-for-34. NYR scored 4 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

A. Soderblom

CHI · 32/38 · .842

-0.9

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/71.6+1.6

Medium5/242.7-2.3

Low1/370.8-0.2

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

D. Garand

NYR · 27/28 · .964

+1.3

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.6+0.6

Medium1/131.1+0.1

Low0/330.6+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

98 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

39 shots

Final

98 shots

NYR

59 shots

CHI NYR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, NYR 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

J. Miller

#8 · C · NYR

1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 17:00 on ice · +2

J. Brodzinski

#22 · C · NYR

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 11:00 on ice · +2

B. Schneider

#4 · D · NYR

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:49 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Mar 27

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:09 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 2.3–2.7 Rangers victory with New York at 58% win probability. The Rangers' edge is rooted in a clear underlying advantage: New York generates 48.0% 5v5 expected goals compared to Chicago's 42.0%, while their Corsi percentage splits 49.0%–46.0% in their favor. Even the luck metrics align. Chicago sits at a 0.996 PDO while New York is at 1.009, suggesting the Rangers benefit from marginally better fortune.

Chicago's recent form offers no counterargument. Over their last ten games, the Blackhawks are underwater at minus-10 goal differential, indicating sustained performance issues.

The one tactical wrinkle favors Chicago. S. Knight is on a back-to-back, creating uncertainty about his availability. A tired starter hands Chicago offensive space; a backup introduces unpredictability.

Chicago's offense rests on two players operating at distinct efficiency levels. Tyler Bertuzzi leads with 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes and carries 20 goals and 15 assists, where his 18.0% shooting rate and 7 high-danger goals indicate sustained offensive punch. Connor Bedard trails at 0.82 xG/60 but anchors playmaking with 27 assists and 5 high-danger goals—his 11.8% shooting rate signals underperformance relative to chances created. New York counters with higher-variance contributors. Adam Sykora operates at 0.91 xG/60, the highest among the four, though his three goals and 20.0% shooting suggest a player in limited deployment. Gabe Perreault's 0.79 xG/60 pairs with 13.1% shooting on eight goals, two of which are high-danger conversions.

Chicago's defensive weak link is Anton Frondell, while New York's is Vincent Iorio. Yet Chicago's goal differential decay—minus-10 over the last ten—suggests the problem runs deeper than any single defender can fix.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NYR 58%

58%

NYR

Model favorite

42%

58%

CHI50NYR

NYR by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.3–2.7 NYR; 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 →NYR

42.0%48.0%

46.0%49.0%

2.172.26

2.942.40

1.841.88

2.411.90

0.9961.009

NYR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 1.009) says NYR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CHI

4-3-3

-10 GD · 1d rest

NYR

4-5-1

+1 GD · 2d rest

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.009

NYR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Rangers own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.

Things to watch

The Rangers own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Blackhawks are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

back-to-back.881 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.

NYR

Expected in goal

I. Shesterkin

2 days rest.778 last start

Backup Igor Shesterkin · +21.3 GSAx this season

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

NYR

Adam Sykora3G 1A

0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh

Gabe Perreault8G 11A

0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page