Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
← Sat, Sep 19 · the slate
Breakdown · DAL at STL · Preseason

Stars hold off the Blues

FinalSat, Sep 19
DALDallas Stars2STLSt. Louis Blues1
The verdict · coin flip

The Stars won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

DAL 2 · STL 1
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 10:25 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

Dallas beat St. Louis 2-1, and the way the game actually played out says the Blues were the better team for long stretches — they just ran into a wall in net. Jack Becker settled it late in the second period, but the real story of this one is how little the Stars needed to do offensively to win it.

The Stars struck first: A. Hyry opened the scoring just 16 seconds into the game, set up by C. Hughes and J. Anderson. St. Louis answered in the second period when A. Kaskimaki tied it on a feed from Z. Dean. The game turned late in that same period — Becker's wrist shot from the high slot, unassisted, put Dallas back in front for good. From there it held.

What made it hold wasn't a hot Dallas offense. It was two goalies who barely missed. B. Halverson relieved R. Poirier and didn't allow a thing, finishing 12-for-12. Poirier himself stopped 11 of 12 before that. On the other side, G. Romanov was perfect on 10 shots and J. Binnington stopped 16 of 18. Every goalie who played this game had a strong night — which is a clue that the score doesn't tell the whole story.

It doesn't. Expected goals came out close to even, with St. Louis actually holding a slight edge, and high-danger chances were tied at 3-3. The Blues even held the bulk of shot attempts. By the underlying play, this was a coin-flip game — and the Blues lost that coin flip badly where it counted. St. Louis generated the quality to expect nearly three goals and scored one; the report card credits the Stars' goaltending with a full letter grade of A, saving nearly two goals above what that shot volume should have allowed. That's not puck luck evening out over a season — on this night, it's the entire difference in the final score.

The report card backs that up everywhere else. Offense and defense were close to a wash — Dallas gets a C+ on offense and D+ on defense, St. Louis a B- and C-, separated by workloads that were basically mirror images of each other. Special teams were an F for both clubs: Dallas went 0-for-4 and St. Louis 0-for-3 on the power play, well below a league conversion rate around 21%. Neither team won this game with the man advantage.

The one real red flag for Dallas going forward: 20 rush shots allowed, worth better than two expected goals, is the kind of number that shows up on the report card as this game's biggest concern. The Stars' transition defense had gaps in it every period — it just didn't cost them, because their goaltending covered for it.

Three Stars

  • #41 A. Kaskimaki (STL) — a goal in 20:22
  • #25 A. Hyry (DAL) — a goal in 18:51
  • #40 J. Anderson (DAL) — an assist in 18:05

Final: DAL 2 – STL 1

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Preseason · Sep 19
DAL
2
STL
1

Stars hold off the Blues

Chances 2.8 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Stars took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
2.75
STL
2.95
48% of the chances52%

The board read DAL 2, STL 1. The chances read DAL 2.8, STL 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
−0.8
goals above expected
DAL2.75 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
STL2.95 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blues 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
  1. P1 00:16DALA. Hyry1–0
  2. P2 13:30STLA. Kaskimaki1–1
  3. P2 18:29DALJ. Becker2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Chances by danger
DALSTL
1 / 3
0.63 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.67 xG
1 / 15
1.66 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.81 xG
0 / 33
0.46 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.47 xG

The Blues went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
B. Halverson
+3.0
DAL · 12/12
A+
G. Romanov
+2.8
STL · 10/10
+2 more on the full breakdown
Report card
DALSTL
OffenseC+B-
DefenseD+C-
TransitionCC
Special teamsFF
GoaltendingAB-
DisciplineB-C-
LuckBD
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why DAL won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02B. Halverson tilted the crease
  3. 03The moment it turned
Why STL lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03Paraded to the penalty box
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars hold off the Blues

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 / 09 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 12–6
  1. 00:16DALA. Hyry(C. Hughes, J. Anderson)1–0
2ndshots 6–6
  1. 13:30STLA. Kaskimaki(Z. Dean)1–1
  2. 18:29DALJ. Becker2–1
3rdshots 10–12no goals

    score reads DAL–STL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.75
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.022
    DAL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    46.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.75Expected goals2.95
    STL 52% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal24
    3High-danger chances3
    51All attempts (Corsi)58
    Adjusted for score: DAL 43% · STL 57%
    Faceoffs · STL won50%off46%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    DAL1 / 3 · 0.63 xG
    STL0 / 3 · 0.67 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    DAL1 / 15 · 1.66 xG
    STL1 / 16 · 1.81 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    DAL0 / 33 · 0.46 xG
    STL0 / 39 · 0.47 xG

    STL went 1-for-16 from medium danger on 1.81 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    DAL
    2 G · 2.75 xG · -0.8
    STL
    1 G · 2.95 xG · -1.9
    01234

    DAL finished -0.8 against expected, STL -1.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    DAL
    WRIST2/28
    SNAP0/2
    TIP IN0/2
    BACKHAND0/3
    SLAP0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/12
    STL
    WRIST0/21
    SNAP1/6
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    SLAP0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/21
    DAL
    STL
    Off the rush
    2 G on 20
    2.08 xG
    1 G on 20
    2.06 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.28 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.45 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 2-for-28, STL 0-for-21. DAL 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
    R. Poirier
    DAL · 11/12 · .917
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium1/161.8+0.8
    Low0/390.5+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

    B. Halverson
    DAL · 12/12 · 1.000
    +3.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium1/161.8+0.8
    Low0/390.5+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

    G. Romanov
    STL · 10/10 · 1.000
    +2.8
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.6-0.4
    Medium1/151.7+0.7
    Low0/330.5+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 · 16/18 · .889
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.6-0.4
    Medium1/151.7+0.7
    Low0/330.5+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

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionDALSTL
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    DAL Created 2.75 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.63 xG) and 20 rush shots (2.08 xG).

    STL Created 2.95 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.67 xG) and 20 rush shots (2.06 xG).

    C+
    79
    B-
    81
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    DAL Allowed 2.95 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.67 xG) and 20 rush shots (2.06 xG).

    STL Allowed 2.75 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.63 xG) and 20 rush shots (2.08 xG).

    D+
    69
    C-
    71
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    DAL Rush shots 20–20, rush xG 2.08–2.06 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    STL Rush shots 20–20, rush xG 2.06–2.08 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    C
    75
    C
    75
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    DAL 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.78 PP xG.

    STL 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.40 PP xG.

    F
    56
    F
    53
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    DAL +1.95 goals saved above expected on 24 shots against.

    STL +0.75 goals saved above expected on 28 shots against.

    A
    94
    B-
    82
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

    DAL Took 5 penalties for 16 PIM vs 6 for 18 on the other side.

    STL Took 6 penalties for 18 PIM vs 5 for 16 on the other side.

    B-
    80
    C-
    70
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    DAL Finishing -0.75 goals vs xG plus +1.95 GSAx of save luck = +1.20 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    STL Finishing -1.95 goals vs xG plus +0.75 GSAx of save luck = -1.20 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    B
    85
    D
    65
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    WARNINGSTL

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 20 rush shots worth 2.08 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

    Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

    STRENGTHDAL

    Dangerous off the rush

    2 goals on 20 rush shots worth 2.08 xG.

    WARNINGDAL

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 20 rush shots worth 2.06 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

    Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

    LUCKSTL

    Cold finishing night

    Scored 1 on 2.95 xG — -1.95 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

    STRENGTHSTL

    Dangerous off the rush

    1 goals on 20 rush shots worth 2.06 xG.

    STRENGTHDAL

    B. Halverson tilted the crease

    B. Halverson stopped 12 of 12 (1.000), +1.47 goals above expected.

    Ranked from the box score

    Three stars

    Points first
    Three stars · computed, not voted
    A. Kaskimaki
    #41 · C · STL
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:22 on ice · +1
    A. Hyry
    #25 · R · DAL
    1 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 18:51 on ice · +1
    J. Anderson
    #40 · D · DAL
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 18:05 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Sep 19
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    Preseason · exhibition

    Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The rates below are last season's; this exhibition will not count toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

    ◆ By the ModelSep 19, 9:31 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 3.0–3.0 tie with Dallas at 51% win probability—essentially a coin flip. The underlying play favors the Stars, but their shooting luck creates risk on the other side.

    Dallas owns 5v5 play. The Stars generate 52.1% xG against St. Louis's 48.7%, a comfortable edge in shot quality and volume. That advantage is real and repeatable. But Dallas is running hot: a 1.024 PDO suggests the team is converting at a rate above its expected rate. That slack eventually tightens.

    The Blues counter by neutralizing Jason Robertson. Robertson is Dallas's engine—0.96 xG/60, 25 goals, 2 high-danger tallies, and a 12.4% shooting rate that suggests he's both efficient and unsustainable. Locking him down is St. Louis's most direct path to an upset.

    Dallas, in turn, targets Jimmy Snuggerud. Snuggerud posts 0.86 xG/60, 15 goals, and 2 high-danger goals. He's the Blues' highest-leverage offensive threat, and the Stars will game-plan to keep him quiet.

    Beyond the marquee matchups: Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8G, 7.6% shooting) is Dallas's secondary offensive threat worth monitoring. For St. Louis, Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13G, 10.8% shooting) offers consistent depth scoring.

    Dallas has a defensive liability in Tyler Myers. He's bleeding chances—2.79 xGA/60 with 53 high-danger shots against this season. That's the Blues' softest target for sustained pressure.

    The underlying metrics split narrowly otherwise. St. Louis holds 48.3% Corsi% to Dallas's 47.1%—essentially even in shot volume. The Blues' 1.000 PDO sits right at expectation, meaning they're converting at rates their shot quality earns. If Dallas regresses even slightly on its PDO advantage, St. Louis's steadier process could prevail.

    The verdict: Dallas should win this matchup on process. The Stars' 52.1% xG share is the kind of edge that compounds. But a one-game sample is noisy, and Dallas's 51% win probability acknowledges the volatility. St. Louis can win by shutting down Robertson, exploiting Myers, and executing their own 48.7% xG pace cleanly. The fact that this projects as a coin flip, despite Dallas's process advantage, is really a statement about how much variance one game contains.

    Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

    Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DAL 51%
    51%
    DAL
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    DAL50STL

    DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 3.0–3.0 STL; 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
    DAL← edge
    edge →STL
    52.1%48.7%
    47.1%48.3%
    3.102.80
    2.862.95
    3.332.80
    2.713.10
    1.0241.000

    DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.000) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    DAL
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    STL
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.024
    DAL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.000
    STL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    TACTICALSTL

    Shutdown Assignment: Blues

    Key matchup: Neutralize Jason Robertson (25G, 0.96 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Jason Robertson (25G, 0.96 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    TACTICALDAL

    Shutdown Assignment: Stars

    Key matchup: Neutralize Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 0.86 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 0.86 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    WARNINGDAL

    Exploitable minutes: Tyler Myers

    Tyler Myers is on ice for 2.79 xGA/60 and 53 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Tyler Myers's shifts with the top line.

    WARNINGSTL

    Exploitable minutes: Jimmy Snuggerud

    Jimmy Snuggerud is on ice for 2.75 xGA/60 and 44 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Jimmy Snuggerud's shifts with the top line.

    Where the edges live
    • The Stars own the underlying play — 52.1% 5v5 xG vs 48.7%.
    Regression watch
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Stars own the underlying play — 52.1% 5v5 xG vs 48.7%.
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    DAL
    Jason Robertson25G 21A
    0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
    Michael Bunting8G 14A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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

    Back to the front page