Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater

Breakdown · CHI at EDM

Oilers run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Apr 2

CHIChicago Blackhawks1 EDMEdmonton Oilers3

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 1 · EDM 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:06 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

Edmonton's 11-5 high-danger chance advantage predicted a blowout. Instead, they won 3-1, a scoreline that flattered Chicago only because S. Knight delivered a 0.970 save percentage and stopped 3.88 goals above expected.

The Oilers' dominance extended across every underlying metric. They controlled 66% of expected goals (5.62–2.87), held 68% of shot attempts (39–18), and generated xG at 0.080 per shot compared to Chicago's 0.050. Both teams underperformed their xG—Edmonton by 2.62 goals, Chicago by 1.87—but the gap in play was unmistakable.

Edmonton's efficiency showed on the rush, where they scored 2 goals from 35 chances and created 9 rebound opportunities, burying one. That net-front dominance eluded Chicago entirely.

T. Jarry (EDM) posted a 0.944 save percentage and +1.87 in save value, solid work behind an elite team. A. Soderblom (CHI) appeared in relief and managed a 0.800 save percentage.

Vasily Podkolzin's snap shot from the top of the circles at 18:59 of the third period marked the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 2

CHI

EDM

Oilers run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.9 – 5.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

2.87

EDM

5.62

34% of the chances66%

The board read CHI 1, EDM 3. The chances read CHI 2.9, EDM 5.6.

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

Luck check

EDM

−2.6

goals above expected

EDM5.62 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI2.87 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blackhawks 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

P2 05:32EDMA. Henrique0–1
P2 12:13EDMM. SavoiePP0–2
P3 05:06CHIN. Lardis1–2
P3 18:59EDMV. PodkolzinEN1–3

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

Where the shots came from

CHI

37 shots

Final

91 shots

EDM

54 shots

CHI EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHIEDM

1 / 5

1.09 xG

High danger

2 / 11

2.92 xG

0 / 11

1.20 xG

Medium

1 / 18

1.93 xG

0 / 42

0.57 xG

Low

0 / 41

0.77 xG

The Oilers buried 2 of 11 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A+

S. Knight

+4.6

CHI · 32/33

A+

A. Soderblom

+4.6

CHI · 4/5

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Oilers 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 5–12no goals

2ndshots 7–16

05:32EDMA. Henrique(J. Roslovic, D. Nurse)0–1
12:13EDMM. Savoiepower play(C. McDavid, E. Bouchard)0–2

3rdshots 6–11

05:06CHIN. Lardis(C. Bedard, T. Teravainen)1–2
18:59EDMV. Podkolzinempty net(J. Dickinson, C. Murphy)1–3

score reads CHI–EDM

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.62

EDM chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.6

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.026

EDM puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

54.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.87Expected goals5.62

EDM 66% of the chance quality

18Shots on goal39

5High-danger chances11

58All attempts (Corsi)70

Adjusted for score: CHI 49% · EDM 52%

Faceoffs · EDM won58%off47%neu46%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI1 / 5 · 1.09 xG

EDM2 / 11 · 2.92 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI0 / 11 · 1.20 xG

EDM1 / 18 · 1.93 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI0 / 42 · 0.57 xG

EDM0 / 41 · 0.77 xG

CHI went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.20 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

1 G · 2.87 xG · -1.9

EDM

3 G · 5.62 xG · -2.6

0123456

CHI finished -1.9 against expected, EDM -2.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

SNAP1/23

WRIST0/5

SLAP0/2

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/21

EDM

SNAP2/11

WRIST0/25

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND1/6

DEFLECTED0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/16

CHI

EDM

Off the rush

0 G on 23

1.96 xG

2 G on 35

3.71 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.23 xG

1 G on 9

1.34 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-23, EDM 2-for-11. EDM 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

S. Knight

CHI · 32/33 · .970

+4.6

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/112.9+0.9

Medium1/181.9+0.9

Low0/410.8+0.8

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. Soderblom

CHI · 4/5 · .800

+4.6

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/112.9+0.9

Medium1/181.9+0.9

Low0/410.8+0.8

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

T. Jarry

EDM · 17/18 · .944

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.1+0.1

Medium0/111.2+1.2

Low0/420.6+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

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

37 shots

Final

91 shots

EDM

54 shots

CHI EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

E. Bouchard

#2 · D · EDM

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:10 on ice

C. McDavid

#97 · C · EDM

0 G · 1 A · 8 SOG · 21:45 on ice

D. Nurse

#25 · D · EDM

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:23 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 2

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:04 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

Edmonton enters with a 60% win probability in a matchup the model projects as a 2.3-to-2.9 advantage. The gap widens when you account for luck.

The Oilers own the underlying play: 52.0% expected goals share against 42.0%, and 50.0% Corsi to control territory decisively. Form backs it up — Edmonton is 6-3-1 over their last 10, while Chicago sits at -19 goal differential in the same window, a stark illustration of how far below the surface things have drifted.

The opening matters: Chicago's goaltending will command attention. C. Ingram is on a back-to-back and faces the risk of a tired start or a backup appearance. S. Knight faces the same squeeze on the other end. The Oilers are running ice cold at 0.982 PDO, and positive regression is not a question of if, but when.

Chicago's offensive foundation centers on Tyler Bertuzzi, who leads at 20 goals with 15 assists and an xG output of 0.85 per 60 minutes. His 7 high-danger goals reflect volume and finishing — an 18.0% shooting rate confirms efficiency. Connor Bedard's 17 goals and 27 assists (0.82 xG/60) widen the workload, though his 11.8% shooting suggests room for regression.

Edmonton counters with Zach Hyman as the engine: 1.23 xG/60, 14 goals, 13 assists, and just 1 high-danger goal. His 13.0% shooting rate sits flush with his role. Connor McDavid operates above this. Twenty-five goals, 33 assists, and 0.92 xG/60 places him as the fulcrum of Edmonton's attack. At 13.7% shooting, he has run warmer than expected; the Oilers' collective 0.982 PDO masks individual variance.

Chicago's defensive weak point emerges around Anton Frondell. Edmonton's liability runs through Jake Walman. Both teams have struggled to generate high-danger and rebound goals — a constraint that favors the team whose underlying metrics suggest more volume is coming. That's Edmonton.

The model is lean because Edmonton's 52.0% xG share reflects superior play, not fortune. Chicago's only structural advantage is goaltending; the back-to-back assignments undermine even that. The Oilers' 0.982 PDO leaves room for positive regression. The Blackhawks' -19 goal differential leaves none.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 60%

60%

EDM

Model favorite

40%

60%

CHI50EDM

EDM by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.3–2.9 EDM; 17% 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 →EDM

42.0%52.0%

46.0%50.0%

2.172.64

2.942.47

1.842.13

2.412.29

0.9960.982

EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.982) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CHI

2-5-3

-19 GD · 1d rest

EDM

6-3-1

+0 GD · 1d rest

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.982

EDM PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
C. Ingram is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Oilers are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
The Blackhawks are underwater at -19 goal differential over their last 10.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

back-to-back.833 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.

EDM

Expected in goal

C. Ingram

back-to-back1.000 last start

Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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

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

EDM

Zach Hyman14G 13A

1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh

Connor McDavid25G 33A

0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page