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

Blues run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 5 · STL 7
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:51 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 beat Pittsburgh 7–5, and nearly every underlying metric said they deserved it—except for one: both teams vastly overperformed their expected goals. The Blues exceeded theirs by 2.51 goals; the Penguins by 2.58. That's an indication the game included outsized variance despite the Blues' firm 65% control of five-on-five expected goals (4.49–2.42).

The real separation came in shot quality, not volume. The Blues held 57% of shot attempts (31–23) and created 7 high-danger chances to Pittsburgh's 2. They buried 4 of 7 (57%) around the net.

Dylan Holloway's wrist shot from the high slot in the third period was the turning point, one of his two goals in 19:02 of ice time. J. Snuggerud matched that with 2G, 2A in 16:40; L. Mailloux added 1G, 1A in 21:27. St. Louis went 5-for-29 on the rush while Pittsburgh managed 3-for-26, but the Blues' net-front work—4 rebound opportunities with 2 conversions—separated the teams.

Goalies revealed the game's fragility. J. Binnington allowed 2.58 more goals than expected against a 0.783 save percentage—a crater that should have sunk St. Louis. Instead, the Blues' offensive overperformance (2.51 goals above xG) masked the damage. Pittsburgh, despite overperforming their 2.42 xG by 2.58 goals, simply didn't generate the volume to matter.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 14
PIT
5
STL
7

Blues run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.4 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
2.42
STL
4.49
35% of the chances65%

The board read PIT 5, STL 7. The chances read PIT 2.4, STL 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
+2.5
goals above expected
STL4.49 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT2.42 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blues scored 2.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 10:14PITR. McGroarty1–0
  2. P1 16:40PITA. Hayes2–0
  3. P1 17:23PITA. Mantha3–0
  4. P1 18:44STLJ. Snuggerud3–1
  5. P2 02:58PITE. Soderblom4–1
  6. P2 04:51STLO. Sundqvist4–2
  7. P2 10:37STLL. Mailloux4–3
+5 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
35 shots
5
Final
79 shots
STL
44 shots
7
PIT attackSTL attack
PIT STL Goal
35
shots · 5 in
44
shots · 7 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITSTL
1 / 2
0.54 xG
High danger
4 / 7
2.10 xG
3 / 11
1.28 xG
Medium
2 / 18
1.87 xG
1 / 37
0.60 xG
Low
1 / 29
0.51 xG

The Blues buried 4 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Silovs
+2.5
PIT · 7/9
B
S. Skinner
+0.5
PIT · 17/21
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues run the Penguins 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 8–5
  1. 10:14PITR. McGroarty(K. Hayes)1–0
  2. 16:40PITA. Hayes2–0
  3. 17:23PITA. Mantha(K. Hayes)3–0
  4. 18:44STLJ. Snuggerud(R. Thomas)3–1
2ndshots 6–16
  1. 02:58PITE. Soderblom(B. Kindel, A. Mantha)4–1
  2. 04:51STLO. Sundqvist(A. Toropchenko, P. Broberg)4–2
  3. 10:37STLL. Mailloux(J. Drouin, J. Neighbours)4–3
  4. 15:49STLJ. Snuggerudpower play(J. Neighbours, D. Holloway)4–4
3rdshots 9–10
  1. 04:11STLD. Holloway(J. Snuggerud, R. Thomas)4–5
  2. 04:55STLP. Buchnevich(J. Kyrou, J. Binnington)4–6
  3. 12:20PITA. Hayes(R. Shea, A. Silovs)5–6
  4. 18:17STLD. Hollowayempty net(J. Snuggerud, L. Mailloux)5–7

score reads PIT–STL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.49
STL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.030
STL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
51.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.42Expected goals4.49
STL 65% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal31
2High-danger chances7
50All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: PIT 47% · STL 53%
Faceoffs · STL won61%off36%neu33%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT1 / 2 · 0.54 xG
STL4 / 7 · 2.10 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT3 / 11 · 1.28 xG
STL2 / 18 · 1.87 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT1 / 37 · 0.60 xG
STL1 / 29 · 0.51 xG

STL went 4-for-7 from high danger on 2.10 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
5 G · 2.42 xG · +2.6
STL
7 G · 4.49 xG · +2.5
012345678

PIT finished +2.6 against expected, STL +2.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST5/25
SNAP0/4
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/15
STL
WRIST4/20
SNAP3/13
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/0
OTHER0/10
PIT
STL
Off the rush
3 G on 26
2.05 xG
5 G on 29
3.13 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.08 xG
2 G on 4
1.05 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 5-for-25, STL 4-for-20. STL 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
A. Silovs
PIT · 7/9 · .778
+2.5
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/72.1-1.9
Medium2/181.9-0.1
Low1/290.5-0.5

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

S. Skinner
PIT · 17/21 · .810
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/72.1-1.9
Medium2/181.9-0.1
Low1/290.5-0.5

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. Binnington
STL · 18/23 · .783
-2.6
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.5
Medium3/111.3-1.7
Low1/370.6-0.4

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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
35 shots
5
Final
79 shots
STL
44 shots
7
PIT attackSTL attack
PIT STL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT 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
J. Snuggerud
#21 · R · STL
2 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:40 on ice · +2
D. Holloway
#81 · L · STL
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:02 on ice · +2
L. Mailloux
#23 · D · STL
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 21:27 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Apr 14
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:48 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 is a pick'em. The model projects a 2.5–2.6 goal game with the Blues at 50% win probability—as close to even-money as the numbers get.

The underlying metrics confirm it. Pittsburgh owns a 51.0% expected-goal share at 5-on-5 against St. Louis's 49.0%, a margin too narrow to signal control. Corsi rates diverge slightly more at 50.0% for Pittsburgh and 48.0% for St. Louis, but that gap barely registers. The only material difference is PDO: Pittsburgh's 1.012 exceeds St. Louis's 1.000, a sign the Penguins have enjoyed modest puck luck.

Players to Watch

Pittsburgh

  • Filip Hallander — 1.28 xG/60, 0G 3A (likely unavailable; undergoing further evaluation)
  • Rickard Rakell — 1.01 xG/60, 13G 13A, 3 HD goals, 12.1% shooting

St. Louis

  • Jimmy Snuggerud — 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
  • Dylan Holloway — 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 HD goal, 10.8% shooting

Rakell's 12.1% shooting rate isn't luck—he owns 3 high-danger goals behind it. For St. Louis, Snuggerud (15 goals on 0.86 xG/60) and Holloway (13 goals on 0.82 xG/60) both shoot well above model, evidence of genuine finish. Hallander's unavailability removes one of Pittsburgh's highest-volume offensive generators.

Both teams carry defensive liabilities. Caleb Jones for Pittsburgh and Jimmy Snuggerud for St. Louis represent the softest targets—which is notable since Snuggerud simultaneously functions as one of St. Louis's most dangerous forwards.

Two evenly matched teams on paper. The shot volume and expected-goal rates refuse to separate them. Offensive depth doesn't tip it either. What decides this game is goaltending—the one variable the pregame models cannot predict. Net play breaks the tie.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 51%
50%
STL
Model favorite
50%
50%
PIT50STL

STL by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 2.5–2.6 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
PIT← edge
edge →STL
51.0%49.0%
50.0%48.0%
2.662.34
2.552.40
2.452.00
2.122.12
1.0121.000

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.000) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PIT
6-4-0
+9 GD · 2d rest
STL
6-3-1
+10 GD · 3d rest
1.012
PIT 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
  • Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PIT
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
2 days rest.923 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

STL
Expected in goal
J. Hofer
3 days rest.912 last start
Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% 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