Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
Breakdown · CHI at SJS

Sharks hold off the Blackhawks

The verdict · stolen

The Sharks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.49–2.73 and won anyway.

CHI 2 · SJS 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:39 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

Chicago controlled 56% of expected goals at 5v5 and lost 3-2. San Jose won despite the quality battle favoring its opponent.

A. Nedeljkovic's goaltending proved decisive. The Sharks' goaltender posted 0.931 SV%, outperforming expected by 1.49 goals; S. Knight managed 0.870. On high-danger chances the teams were even at 7–7. San Jose scored 3 on 23 rush chances; Chicago generated 4 rebound opportunities and converted 1.

Frank Nazar's slap shot from the high slot (P3, 06:09) represented Chicago's clearest chance to tie. W. Eklund (SJS) had 1G, 1A in 15:03. M. Celebrini (SJS) had 1A in 22:05.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 6
CHI
2
SJS
3

Sharks hold off the Blackhawks

Chances 3.5 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
3.49
SJS
2.73
56% of the chances44%

The board read CHI 2, SJS 3. The chances read CHI 3.5, SJS 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+0.3
goals above expected
SJS2.73 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI3.49 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. P1 09:01CHIR. Donato1–0
  2. P2 06:57SJSW. Eklund1–1
  3. P2 14:55SJSK. Sherwood1–2
  4. P3 03:28SJSW. Smith1–3
  5. P3 06:09CHIF. NazarPP2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
40 shots
2
Final
77 shots
SJS
37 shots
3
CHI attackSJS attack
CHI SJS Goal
40
shots · 2 in
37
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHISJS
1 / 7
1.55 xG
High danger
2 / 7
1.42 xG
1 / 16
1.44 xG
Medium
0 / 6
0.65 xG
0 / 28
0.50 xG
Low
1 / 37
0.66 xG

The Sharks buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Nedeljkovic
+1.5
SJS · 27/29
D
S. Knight
−0.3
CHI · 20/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks 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 7–6
  1. 09:01CHIR. Donato(F. Nazar, C. Bedard)1–0
2ndshots 12–12
  1. 06:57SJSW. Eklund1–1
  2. 14:55SJSK. Sherwood(W. Eklund, A. Wennberg)1–2
3rdshots 10–5
  1. 03:28SJSW. Smith(C. Graf, M. Celebrini)1–3
  2. 06:09CHIF. Nazarpower play(T. Teravainen, A. Frondell)2–3

score reads CHI–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.73
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.021
SJS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
49.5%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.49Expected goals2.73
CHI 56% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal23
7High-danger chances7
51All attempts (Corsi)50
Adjusted for score: CHI 52% · SJS 48%
Faceoffs · SJS won64%off71%neu77%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CHI1 / 7 · 1.55 xG
SJS2 / 7 · 1.42 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CHI1 / 16 · 1.44 xG
SJS0 / 6 · 0.65 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CHI0 / 28 · 0.50 xG
SJS1 / 37 · 0.66 xG

SJS went 0-for-6 from medium danger on 0.65 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CHI
2 G · 3.49 xG · -1.5
SJS
3 G · 2.73 xG · +0.3
01234

CHI finished -1.5 against expected, SJS +0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CHI
WRIST1/28
SLAP1/8
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/0
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/11
SJS
WRIST1/21
SLAP1/6
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP1/4
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/13
CHI
SJS
Off the rush
1 G on 25
2.18 xG
3 G on 23
2.46 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.91 xG
0 G on 0
0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-28, SJS 1-for-21. SJS scored 3 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 · 20/23 · .870
-0.3
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.4-0.6
Medium0/60.7+0.7
Low1/370.7-0.3

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

A. Nedeljkovic
SJS · 27/29 · .931
+1.5
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.6+0.6
Medium1/161.4+0.4
Low0/280.5+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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CHI
40 shots
2
Final
77 shots
SJS
37 shots
3
CHI attackSJS attack
CHI SJS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, SJS 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. Nazar
#91 · C · CHI
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 21:35 on ice · +1
W. Eklund
#72 · L · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:03 on ice · +2
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:05 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Apr 6
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:37 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

San Jose holds a 57% win probability in the model's projection of a 2.4-to-2.8-goal game — a meaningful edge built on superior underlying play. The Sharks generate 48.0% of expected goals at 5v5 to Chicago's 42.0%, a gap that translates to shot quality and opportunity creation even if recent results haven't matched. The Sharks' 47.0% Corsi reading slightly outpaces Chicago's 46.0%, reinforcing the pattern.

Both teams stumble into this matchup struggling. San Jose sits −11 in goal differential over its last 10 games; Chicago is worse at −14. Recent performance hasn't reflected the underlying structure — a finding that points to variance clouding the true play patterns, particularly for the Sharks' side.

Goaltending uncertainty clouds both contenders. Y. Askarov faces his second consecutive game on short rest; A. Soderblom does the same for Chicago. Either backup appearance or fatigue from a tired starter could shift the competitive balance. Pregame confirmations matter here.

Chicago's offensive load falls on Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard. Bertuzzi generates 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes and has converted at 18.0%, producing 20 goals and 15 assists with 7 high-danger tallies. His output tracks his underlying metrics precisely. Bedard's 0.82 xG/60 sits marginally below Bertuzzi's, but his 11.8% shooting rate stands out — he's posted 17 goals and 27 assists while converting at an unusually low percentage from his opportunities.

San Jose's offense centers on Pavol Regenda at 1.10 xG/60 with 16.1% shooting, though he's likely out with an inactive designation. Igor Chernyshov provides secondary offensive output at 0.91 xG/60 with 6 goals and 8 assists, though he surfaces on San Jose's defensive weak-link list.

Anton Frondell surfaces as Chicago's primary defensive vulnerability. Neither team has registered high-danger or rebound goals at meaningful rates, indicating both defenses are effectively neutralizing secondary chances.

The underlying divergence is clear: Chicago's processes consistently lag. That gap builds confidence in San Jose's model advantage, suggesting the Sharks' 57% projection reflects true structural superiority. Form may reset, but the Sharks' edge in underlying play offers the more reliable path forward.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

SJS 57%
57%
SJS
Model favorite
43%
57%
CHI50SJS

SJS by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 2.4–2.8 SJS; 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 →SJS
42.0%48.0%
46.0%47.0%
2.172.33
2.942.56
1.841.99
2.412.32
0.9960.998

SJS holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.998) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CHI
3-5-2
-14 GD · 1d rest
SJS
4-5-1
-11 GD · 1d rest
0.996
CHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Sharks own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Sharks own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • Y. Askarov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • A. Soderblom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Sharks are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Blackhawks are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CHI
Expected in goal
A. Soderblom
back-to-back.926 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.

SJS
Expected in goal
Y. Askarov
back-to-back.848 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.

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
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
Keep going

Where to next