Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater
Breakdown · CHI at NJD

Devils hold off the Blackhawks

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 3 · NJD 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:38 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 nearly stole this game—his 0.897 save percentage on 39 shots (+2.89 versus expected) was the margin between a decisive rout and a close contest. The Devils beat the Blackhawks 5-3 but had to work for it against elite goaltending.

The underlying numbers otherwise backed New Jersey's dominance. They controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (6.89–4.60) and held 56% of shot attempts (40–31 on goal). High-danger chances tilted 11–8 in their favor.

Both teams left goals on the table. The Devils underperformed their xG by 1.89, squandering quality chances. Chicago underperformed by 1.60—a wasted opportunity to stay closer on the scoreboard.

New Jersey's offensive edge came on the rush. They converted 5 of 34 rush chances into goals; Chicago managed 3 of 34. The Devils also crashed the net effectively, creating 13 rebound opportunities, though none found the back of the net. J. Allen (28/31 saves, 0.903 SV%) was solid but less dramatic than his counterpart.

Jack Hughes carried the offensive load for New Jersey—his wrist shot from the top of the circles (P3, 19:29) set the turning point early. Hughes finished with 2 goals and 2 assists in 22:12. N. Hischier added 2 assists in 21:25 for New Jersey's secondary production.

For Chicago, F. Nazar scored twice in 19:00, bringing aggression but not enough to overtake a team that executed better at even strength.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 29
CHI
3
NJD
5

Devils hold off the Blackhawks

Chances 4.6 – 6.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Devils earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
4.60
NJD
6.89
40% of the chances60%

The board read CHI 3, NJD 5. The chances read CHI 4.6, NJD 6.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NJD
−1.9
goals above expected
NJD6.89 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI4.60 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 1.6 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 04:19CHII. Mikheyev1–0
  2. P1 11:15NJDC. BrownPP1–1
  3. P1 13:11CHIF. Nazar2–1
  4. P2 15:48NJDS. Nemec2–2
  5. P3 10:51CHIF. NazarPP3–2
  6. P3 14:32NJDD. Hamilton3–3
  7. P3 14:51NJDJ. Hughes3–4
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
50 shots
3
Final
117 shots
NJD
67 shots
5
CHI attackNJD attack
CHI NJD Goal
50
shots · 3 in
67
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHINJD
1 / 8
1.81 xG
High danger
1 / 11
2.85 xG
2 / 20
2.25 xG
Medium
3 / 30
3.29 xG
0 / 37
0.53 xG
Low
1 / 48
0.75 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 1 of 8, NJD 1 of 11.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Knight
+2.9
CHI · 35/39
A
J. Allen
+1.6
NJD · 28/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Devils hold off the Blackhawks

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 13–14
  1. 04:19CHII. Mikheyev(A. Frondell, L. Crevier)1–0
  2. 11:15NJDC. Brownpower play(L. Hughes, J. Hughes)1–1
  3. 13:11CHIF. Nazar(R. Donato, A. Burakovsky)2–1
2ndshots 5–16
  1. 15:48NJDS. Nemec(D. Mercer, N. Hischier)2–2
3rdshots 13–10
  1. 10:51CHIF. Nazarpower play(C. Bedard, A. Frondell)3–2
  2. 14:32NJDD. Hamilton(J. Hughes, T. Meier)3–3
  3. 14:51NJDJ. Hughes(J. Bratt, J. Siegenthaler)3–4
  4. 19:29NJDJ. Hughesempty net(N. Hischier, J. Kovacevic)3–5

score reads CHI–NJD

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.89
NJD chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.9
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.010
NJD puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
57.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.60Expected goals6.89
NJD 60% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal40
8High-danger chances11
65All attempts (Corsi)89
Adjusted for score: CHI 40% · NJD 60%
Faceoffs · NJD won58%off69%neu57%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CHI1 / 8 · 1.81 xG
NJD1 / 11 · 2.85 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CHI2 / 20 · 2.25 xG
NJD3 / 30 · 3.29 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CHI0 / 37 · 0.53 xG
NJD1 / 48 · 0.75 xG

NJD went 1-for-11 from high danger on 2.85 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CHI
3 G · 4.60 xG · -1.6
NJD
5 G · 6.89 xG · -1.9
012345678

CHI finished -1.6 against expected, NJD -1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CHI
WRIST2/29
SNAP0/5
SLAP1/4
BACKHAND0/7
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/15
NJD
WRIST2/35
SNAP2/11
SLAP0/9
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/6
DEFLECTED1/1
POKE0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/22
CHI
NJD
Off the rush
3 G on 34
3.64 xG
5 G on 34
3.55 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.46 xG
0 G on 13
2.09 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 2-for-29, NJD 2-for-35. NJD scored 5 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 · 35/39 · .897
+2.9
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/112.9+1.9
Medium3/303.3+0.3
Low1/480.8-0.3

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. Allen
NJD · 28/31 · .903
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/81.8+0.8
Medium2/202.3+0.3
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

117 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CHI
50 shots
3
Final
117 shots
NJD
67 shots
5
CHI attackNJD attack
CHI NJD Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, NJD 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. Hughes
#86 · C · NJD
2 G · 2 A · 8 SOG · 22:12 on ice · +2
N. Hischier
#13 · C · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:25 on ice · +2
F. Nazar
#91 · C · CHI
2 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 19:00 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Mar 29
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:36 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 2.3–2.8 range for this matchup, with New Jersey at 59% win probability. The Devils' advantage rests on a substantial edge in the underlying play.

Chicago enters this disadvantaged. The Blackhawks carry -14 goal differential over their last ten games and own just 42.0% expected goals and 46.0% Corsi at 5v5—metrics that indicate persistent territorial pressure they're not generating. Anton Frondell's defensive vulnerabilities compound the gap, offering New Jersey opportunities to convert possession into scoring chances.

New Jersey commands the game's tempo. The Devils sit at 50.0% xG and 51.0% Corsi, which means sustained puck pressure and higher-quality shots. This reflects roster construction and execution, not variance. Johnathan Kovacevic presents a weakness on the back line, though not one severe enough to flip the macro advantage.

The Devils are also running cold. Their 0.971 PDO means they're underperforming their underlying shot metrics—a regression floor that normalizes. When it does, New Jersey's goal rate climbs accordingly.

J. Markstrom enters on a back-to-back. Whether Chicago faces him or a backup, the situation offers a narrow margin for Chicago to exploit with flawless execution in transition.

Players to Watch

Chicago: Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 0.85 xG/60, 18.0% shooting) carries the offensive load at elite volume. Connor Bedard (17G, 0.82 xG/60, 11.8% shooting) operates at similar expected goal production but with a lower shooting rate, indicating tighter circumstances for his goals.

New Jersey: Timo Meier (13G, 1.08 xG/60, 6.7% shooting) leads shot generation despite a limited goal total—a sign of bad luck rather than bad skill. Jack Hughes (18G, 0.88 xG/60, 11.5% shooting) is more efficient but operates within a more constrained volume window.

The 5v5 play gap between these teams is substantial enough to act on. Chicago needs goaltending luck and precision to bridge it. The model's 59% Devils lean deserves your trust.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NJD 59%
59%
NJD
Model favorite
41%
59%
CHI50NJD

NJD by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.3–2.8 NJD; 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 →NJD
42.0%50.0%
46.0%51.0%
2.172.45
2.942.50
1.841.66
2.412.23
0.9960.971

NJD holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.971) 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
-14 GD · 2d rest
NJD
6-4-0
+5 GD · 1d rest
0.996
CHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Devils own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Devils own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Markstrom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Blackhawks are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CHI
Expected in goal
A. Soderblom
2 days rest.842 last start
Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NJD
Expected in goal
J. Markstrom
back-to-back.879 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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.

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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next