Breakdown · SJS at CHI

Blackhawks run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalWed, Apr 15

SJSSan Jose Sharks2 CHIChicago Blackhawks5

The verdict · earned

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

SJS 2 · CHI 5

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:08 PMxG: 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 Blackhawks' 5-2 win overstates their advantage: they overperformed their expected goals by 1.07, meaning they converted chances more efficiently than the underlying metrics would predict. The scoreline is wider than the play merits.

Yet the metrics still back their dominance. Chicago held 63% expected goals (3.93 to 2.30), generated 8 high-danger chances to the Sharks' 4, and maintained 58% of shot attempts with superior quality: 0.082 xG per shot versus 0.056.

The gap between the metrics and the scoreline traces to goaltending. Y. Askarov gave up 1.1 more goals than expected, a severe underperformance given his workload.

Chicago also converted rush chances more effectively: 3 goals on 25 attempts versus the Sharks' 2 on 20.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 15

SJS

CHI

Blackhawks run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.3 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

SJS

2.30

CHI

3.93

37% of the chances63%

The board read SJS 2, CHI 5. The chances read SJS 2.3, CHI 3.9.

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

Luck check

CHI

+1.1

goals above expected

CHI3.93 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

SJS2.30 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

P1 08:09SJSM. Ferraro1–0
P2 05:17SJSM. MisaPP2–0
P2 19:30CHIS. Rinzel2–1
P3 03:51CHIL. Crevier2–2
P3 08:35CHIR. Greene2–3
P3 10:32CHIL. Crevier2–4
P3 14:44CHIN. Lardis2–5

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

Where the shots came from

SJS

27 shots

Final

64 shots

CHI

37 shots

SJS CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SJSCHI

0 / 4

0.93 xG

High danger

1 / 8

1.91 xG

1 / 7

0.84 xG

Medium

3 / 14

1.60 xG

1 / 30

0.52 xG

Low

1 / 26

0.42 xG

The Sharks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

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

In the net

S. Knight

+0.3

CHI · 15/17

D-

Y. Askarov

−1.1

SJS · 19/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blackhawks run the Sharks 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 7–3

08:09SJSM. Ferraro(K. Sherwood)1–0

2ndshots 6–10

05:17SJSM. Misapower play(D. Orlov, K. Sherwood)2–0
19:30CHIS. Rinzel(R. Donato)2–1

3rdshots 4–11

03:51CHIL. Crevier(C. Bedard)2–2
08:35CHIR. Greene(E. Del Mastro, A. Burakovsky)2–3
10:32CHIL. Crevier(T. Bertuzzi)2–4
14:44CHIN. Lardis(C. Bedard, W. Kaiser)2–5

score reads SJS–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.93

CHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.055

CHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

53.9%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.30Expected goals3.93

CHI 63% of the chance quality

17Shots on goal24

4High-danger chances8

41All attempts (Corsi)48

Adjusted for score: SJS 44% · CHI 56%

Faceoffs · CHI won30%off57%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SJS0 / 4 · 0.93 xG

CHI1 / 8 · 1.91 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SJS1 / 7 · 0.84 xG

CHI3 / 14 · 1.60 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SJS1 / 30 · 0.52 xG

CHI1 / 26 · 0.42 xG

CHI went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.60 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SJS

2 G · 2.30 xG · -0.3

CHI

5 G · 3.93 xG · +1.1

0123456

SJS finished -0.3 against expected, CHI +1.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SJS

WRIST2/18

SLAP0/3

SNAP0/3

TIP IN0/1

POKE0/1

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/14

CHI

WRIST2/17

SLAP1/8

SNAP2/5

TIP IN0/6

POKE0/1

BACKHAND0/0

OTHER0/11

SJS

CHI

Off the rush

2 G on 20

1.89 xG

3 G on 25

3.01 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.33 xG

0 G on 2

0.22 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 2-for-18, CHI 2-for-17. CHI 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

Y. Askarov

SJS · 19/24 · .792

-1.1

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/81.9+0.9

Medium3/141.6-1.4

Low1/260.4-0.6

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

S. Knight

CHI · 15/17 · .882

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.9+0.9

Medium1/70.8-0.2

Low1/300.5-0.5

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

64 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SJS

27 shots

Final

64 shots

CHI

37 shots

SJS CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

L. Crevier

#46 · D · CHI

2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 19:09 on ice · +2

K. Sherwood

#44 · L · SJS

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 18:17 on ice

C. Bedard

#98 · C · CHI

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 17:51 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Apr 15

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:56 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 2.6–2.5 Sharks victory with San Jose at 52% win probability—essentially a pick'em.

The Sharks are the hotter team. They've gone 6-3-1 over their last ten games, while Chicago is underwater with a -24 goal differential in the same span. San Jose owns the underlying play too: their 48.0% expected goals share compared to the Blackhawks' 42.0% suggests they're controlling play at 5v5, though their Corsi% (47.0% vs. 46.0%) tells a more marginal story. Both teams' PDO values (SJS 0.998, CHI 0.996) sit right at league average, so there's no goaltending or luck variance baked in yet.

The back-to-back situation deserves attention: S. Knight is on one for San Jose, as is A. Nedeljkovic for Chicago. Either team could lean on a backup or risk deploying a fatigued starter.

The Sharks' offensive load runs through Pavol Regenda, though he's marked likely inactive for this game. Their second threat is Igor Chernyshov, who's generated 0.91 expected goals per 60 minutes with 6 goals and 8 assists. Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi (0.85 xG/60, 20 goals, 15 assists) and Connor Bedard (0.82 xG/60, 17 goals, 27 assists). Bertuzzi's 18.0% shooting rate and 7 high-danger goals suggest he's overperforming his underlying metrics; Bedard's 11.8% rate indicates more room to run hot.

Defensively, both teams are at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goals—unsustainably tight play that will regress. Chernyshov is San Jose's defensive weak link, while Anton Frondell stands out as Chicago's liability.

The edge is minimal. San Jose's possession advantage and recent form give them a slight pull, but Chicago's star power up front keeps this squarely in toss-up territory.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

SJS 52%

52%

SJS

Model favorite

52%

48%

SJS50CHI

SJS by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SJS 2.6–2.5 CHI; 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

SJS← edge

edge →CHI

48.0%42.0%

47.0%46.0%

2.332.17

2.562.94

1.991.84

2.322.41

0.9980.996

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

SJS

6-3-1

-4 GD · 1d rest

CHI

1-8-1

-24 GD · 1d rest

0.998

SJS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.996

CHI 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%.
S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Nedeljkovic is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sharks are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
The Blackhawks are underwater at -24 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

SJS

Expected in goal

A. Nedeljkovic

back-to-back.929 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.

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

back-to-back.808 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.

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

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page