Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
← Mon, Sep 21 · the slate
Breakdown · STL at DAL · Preseason

C. DeSmith stands tall as the Stars edge the Blues

FinalMon, Sep 21
STLSt. Louis Blues1DALDallas Stars2
The verdict · stolen

The Stars stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 5.03–4.55 and won anyway.

STL 1 · DAL 2
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 28, 3:41 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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 Stars beat the Blues 2-1 — a result that defied the underlying numbers. C. DeSmith was the difference.

C. DeSmith saved 4.03 goals above expected, nearly double the contribution from St. Louis's backstop. J. Hofer managed 2.03 above expected, but the gap decided it.

Dallas had the edge where it mattered: transition. The Stars scored 2 goals from 28 rush attempts, turning pace into the net in ways St. Louis couldn't match. High-danger chances split 9–11 in St. Louis's favor, but Dallas finished theirs.

The Blues underperformed their expected goals by 4.03 — the kind of wasteful finishing that turns a numbers advantage into a loss. Dallas left 2.55 goals on the table as well, but that gap proved survivable with a heist in goal.

St. Louis forced the moment late. Jonatan Berggren's snap shot from the doorstep at 15:22 of the third cut Dallas's lead to 2-1, marking when the Blues found pressure. Too late.

The rush belonged to Dallas. The Stars got their chances and made them stick. St. Louis didn't.

Final: STL 1 – DAL 2

Data: NHL play-by-play and shift charts, Backcheck expected-goals model

The goals

  • DAL 0–1, 15:15 of the first. T. Harley, snap shot from 46 feet, a 1% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Hofer. Assists: J. Robertson. 7 seconds after a STL giveaway by A. Kaskimaki. Win probability moved 17 points.
  • DAL 0–2, 05:57 of the third. N. Lundkvist, snap shot from 24 feet, a 24% chance by the model (off the rush), past G. Romanov. Assists: M. Rantanen, D. Hryckowian. G. Romanov was 357 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 13 points.
  • STL 1–2, 15:22 of the third. J. Berggren, snap shot from 6 feet, a 26% chance by the model (off the rush), past C. DeSmith. Assists: O. Stenberg. Win probability moved 9 points.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Preseason · Sep 21
STL
1
DAL
2

C. DeSmith stands tall as the Stars edge the Blues

Chances 5.0 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
5.03
DAL
4.55
53% of the chances48%

The board read STL 1, DAL 2. The chances read STL 5.0, DAL 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
−2.5
goals above expected
DAL4.55 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
STL5.03 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blues left 4.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+17
win-probability points
54% → 70% for DAL
DAL 100%the game, start to finish
STL 100%P1 · P2 · P3
DALP1 15:15

T. Harley makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 15:15DALT. Harley1%0–1
  2. P3 05:57DALN. Lundkvist24%0–2
  3. P3 15:22STLJ. Berggren26%1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
45 shots
1
Final
84 shots
DAL
39 shots
2
STL attackDAL attack
STL DAL Goal
45
shots · 1 in
39
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLDAL
1 / 11
2.92 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.11 xG
0 / 20
1.91 xG
Medium
0 / 18
2.15 xG
0 / 31
0.19 xG
Low
1 / 20
0.28 xG

High-danger looks: STL 1 of 11, DAL 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
C. DeSmith
+4.0
DAL · 30/31 · 60:00
Best save · a 51% chance, backhand from 7 ft · P2 08:21
A
J. Hofer
+1.7
STL · 17/18 · 40:00
Best save · a 20% chance, snap from 16 ft · P1 04:01
+1 more on the full breakdown
Best skater on the ice
A+
STL
J. Berggren
R · impact 2.28
14:40
Ice time
1–0
G – A
1.27
Own xG
84%
xG share
Impact · top 4
J. Berggren2.3A+
J. Snuggerud2.0A+
J. Robertson1.8A+
R. Thomas1.6A
Report card
STLDAL
OffenseA+A+
DefenseFF
TransitionC+C-
Special teamsD+D-
GoaltendingA+A+
DisciplineCC
LuckDB+
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why DAL won
  1. 01C. DeSmith stole it
  2. 02Dangerous off the rush
  3. 03The moment it turned
Why STL lost
  1. 01Cold finishing night
  2. 02Rush defense leaked all night
  3. 03Power play came up empty
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

C. DeSmith stands tall as the Stars edge 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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 8–8
  1. 15:15DALT. Harley(J. Robertson)0–1

    Snap shot from 46 feet, a 1% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past J. Hofer. 7s after a STL giveaway by A. Kaskimaki. Win probability moved 17 points.On the ice: K. Burroughs, M. Rantanen, W. Johnston, J. Hryckowian, T. Taylor · against R. Thomas, D. Holloway, J. Snuggerud, Q. Burns, A. Jiricek

2ndshots 13–10no goals
    3rdshots 10–9
    1. 05:57DALN. Lundkvist(M. Rantanen, D. Hryckowian)0–2

      Snap shot from 24 feet, a 24% chance (off the rush), past G. Romanov. G. Romanov was 357s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 13 points.On the ice: M. Rantanen, A. Shlaine, A. Minnetian, J. Anderson, D. Hryckowian · against D. Dube, P. Broberg, L. Mailloux, Z. Dean, A. Kaskimaki, G. Romanov

    2. 15:22STLJ. Berggren(O. Stenberg)1–2

      Snap shot from 6 feet, a 26% chance (off the rush), past C. DeSmith. Win probability moved 9 points.On the ice: D. Dube, Z. Dean, A. Kaskimaki, Q. Burns, G. Romanov, A. Jiricek · against K. Burroughs, M. Rantanen, W. Johnston, J. Hryckowian, T. Taylor

    score reads STL–DAL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.55
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.026
    DAL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    43.1%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.03Expected goals4.55
    STL 53% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal27
    11High-danger chances9
    62All attempts (Corsi)47
    Adjusted for score: STL 60% · DAL 40%
    Faceoffs · DAL won52%off62%neu64%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    STL1 / 11 · 2.92 xG
    DAL1 / 9 · 2.11 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    STL0 / 20 · 1.91 xG
    DAL0 / 18 · 2.15 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    STL0 / 31 · 0.19 xG
    DAL1 / 20 · 0.28 xG

    DAL went 0-for-18 from medium danger on 2.15 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    STL
    1 G · 5.03 xG · -4.0
    DAL
    2 G · 4.55 xG · -2.5
    0123456

    STL finished -4.0 against expected, DAL -2.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    STL
    SNAP1/26
    WRIST0/8
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/17
    DAL
    SNAP2/30
    WRIST0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/8
    STL
    DAL
    Off the rush
    1 G on 27
    3.81 xG
    2 G on 28
    3.51 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 5
    0.92 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.43 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: STL went 1-for-26, DAL 2-for-30. 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
    J. Hofer
    STL · 17/18 · .944
    started · 40:00
    +1.7
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    Attempts faced
    24
    Avg chance faced
    11.2%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.958 vs 0.888
    Rebounds allowed
    4
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/50.9+0.9
    Medium0/131.6+1.6
    Low1/60.1-0.9
    Shorthanded0/81.3+1.3
    Tips & deflections0/20.1+0.1
    The save
    20% chance stopped, a snap from 16 ft · P1 04:01
    The one to have back
    1% chance went in, a snap from 46 ft · P1 15:15

    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 · 8/9 · .889
    in relief · 18:35 · loss
    +0.5
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    Attempts faced
    14
    Avg chance faced
    10.5%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.929 vs 0.895
    Rebounds allowed
    1
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.8-0.2
    Medium0/50.6+0.6
    Low0/60.1+0.1
    Shorthanded0/20.1+0.1
    The save
    30% chance stopped, a snap from 15 ft · P3 12:04
    The one to have back
    24% chance went in, a snap from 24 ft · P3 05:57

    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

    C. DeSmith
    DAL · 30/31 · .968
    started · 60:00 · win
    +4.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    Attempts faced
    45
    Avg chance faced
    11.2%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.978 vs 0.888
    Rebounds allowed
    5
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/112.9+1.9
    Medium0/201.9+1.9
    Low0/140.2+0.2
    Shorthanded0/142.5+2.5
    Tips & deflections0/50.4+0.4
    The save
    51% chance stopped, a backhand from 7 ft · P2 08:21
    The one to have back
    26% chance went in, a snap from 6 ft · P3 15:22

    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

    Every skater who dressed

    Who played

    Rated on what they produced and how fast

    Best skater on the ice by our rating: J. Berggren (STL), 14:40 of ice, 1-0, 84% of the expected goals while he was out.

    STL18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    J. BerggrenR14:401-084A+
    J. SnuggerudR19:480-086A+
    R. ThomasC22:100-077A
    M. McTavishC14:480-075A
    P. BrobergD27:090-066A
    D. HollowayL16:530-065B
    O. StenbergC12:010-119B
    A. KaskimakiC14:410-043C
    L. MaillouxD22:460-046C
    Z. DeanC11:530-046D
    D. PetersonC12:210-031D
    A. JiricekD21:010-039D
    N. WalkerL11:490-022D
    Q. BurnsD16:340-032D
    A. KoromyslovD15:180-023F
    C. RalphD13:210-031F
    O. SundqvistC12:030-033F
    D. DubeC14:090-021F
    DAL18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    J. RobertsonL18:300-180A+
    D. HryckowianR13:520-170A
    M. RantanenR19:330-159A
    T. HarleyD23:571-052B
    R. HintzC17:210-056B
    W. JohnstonC20:180-050B
    J. AndersonD15:430-062B
    J. HryckowianC19:480-055B
    E. HemmingR15:420-056C
    M. SeminoffR13:560-048C
    N. LundkvistD19:531-034C
    C. HughesC0:220-0—C
    A. MinnetianD18:030-050C
    K. BurroughsD15:060-051C
    A. MartinoL13:020-044D
    A. ShlaineC13:570-042D
    E. RickwoodC13:130-033D
    T. TaylorD19:440-026F

    xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

    Scratched, STL: C. Fowler, J. Binnington, T. Krug, C. Parayko, P. Buchnevich, R. Johnston and 38 more. Scratched, DAL: J. Benn, T. Myers, M. Duchene, C. McKenzie, T. Seguin, M. Sgarbossa and 41 more. Referees Gord Dwyer and Nick Isaacson; linesmen Kyle Flemington and Tyson Baker.

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionSTLDAL
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    STL Created 5.03 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 11 high-danger shots (2.92 xG) and 27 rush shots (3.81 xG).

    DAL Created 4.55 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 9 high-danger shots (2.11 xG) and 28 rush shots (3.51 xG).

    A+
    100
    A+
    100
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    STL Allowed 4.55 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 9 high-danger shots (2.11 xG) and 28 rush shots (3.51 xG).

    DAL Allowed 5.03 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 11 high-danger shots (2.92 xG) and 27 rush shots (3.81 xG).

    F
    41
    F
    32
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    STL Rush shots 27–28, rush xG 3.81–3.51 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    DAL Rush shots 28–27, rush xG 3.51–3.81 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    C+
    78
    C-
    72
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    STL 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 2.09 PP xG.

    DAL 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 1.41 PP xG.

    D+
    69
    D-
    62
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    STL +2.55 goals saved above expected on 27 shots against.

    DAL +4.03 goals saved above expected on 31 shots against.

    A+
    100
    A+
    100
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

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

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

    C
    75
    C
    75
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    STL Finishing -4.03 goals vs xG plus +2.55 GSAx of save luck = -1.48 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    DAL Finishing -2.55 goals vs xG plus +4.03 GSAx of save luck = +1.48 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    D
    63
    B+
    87
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    STRENGTHDAL

    C. DeSmith stole it

    C. DeSmith stopped 30 of 31 (0.968) — +4.03 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

    LUCKSTL

    Cold finishing night

    Scored 1 on 5.03 xG — -4.03 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

    WARNINGSTL

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 28 rush shots worth 3.51 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    WARNINGDAL

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 27 rush shots worth 3.81 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    STRENGTHSTL

    J. Hofer stole it

    J. Hofer stopped 17 of 18 (0.944) — +2.03 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

    STRENGTHDAL

    Dangerous off the rush

    2 goals on 28 rush shots worth 3.51 xG.

    84 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    STL
    45 shots
    1
    Final
    84 shots
    DAL
    39 shots
    2
    STL attackDAL attack
    STL DAL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, DAL 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
    T. Harley
    #55 · D · DAL
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 23:57 on ice · +1
    N. Lundkvist
    #5 · D · DAL
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 19:53 on ice · +1
    M. Rantanen
    #96 · R · DAL
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:33 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Sep 21
    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 22, 3:25 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 2.8–3.2 goal outcome favoring Dallas, with the Stars drawing 56% win probability. That edge rests on underlying play: Dallas owns 52.1% of expected goals at 5v5 compared to St. Louis's 48.7%, a meaningful margin in the metric that matters most for predicting close games.

    But Dallas carries a PDO of 1.024—shooting and save rates running hot. Regression is inevitable. St. Louis sits at 1.000, suggesting their efficiency is sustainable. That tension—Dallas leads where it counts but can't sustain its luck—is why the model's lean remains modest.

    The Stars' advantage flows through Jason Robertson, who generates 0.96 expected goals per 60 minutes and has converted into 25 goals with 2 high-danger chances. His shooting rate of 12.4% sits in elite territory. Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8G) amplifies that edge with a 7.6% shooting rate, efficient for a secondary contributor.

    St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud, generating 0.86 xG/60 and delivering 15 goals at 11.9% shooting—elite production despite the team's underlying play deficit. Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13G, 10.8% shooting) compounds the issue: the Blues' two-headed threat generates at a high rate, yet the team's expected-goal percentage remains underwater. That's what the model sees.

    Joel Hofer has been St. Louis's season-long bedrock. He carries +12.6 goals saved above expected over 46 games with a 0.910 save percentage, a rate exceeding league average and suggesting he's playing above the talent in front of him. That's the kind of foundation that steals games the model says should go the other way.

    The Stars must blunt Snuggerud's generation, while St. Louis needs to contain Robertson's efficiency. Holloway and Bunting remain secondary threats the opposing defense must respect.

    The Stars' PDO regression is the story underneath. Yes, underlying play favors Dallas. But shooting efficiency normalizes. If Dallas finishes even slightly below 1.024, this margin compresses fast—and Hofer might steal a game the model says he should lose. The 56% lean is real, but it's close enough that variance matters.

    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 56%
    56%
    DAL
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    STL50DAL

    DAL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.8–3.2 DAL; 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
    STL← edge
    edge →DAL
    48.7%52.1%
    48.3%47.1%
    2.803.10
    2.952.86
    2.803.33
    3.102.71
    1.0001.024

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

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 1
    STL
    0-1-0
    -1 GD · 2d rest
    DAL
    1-0-0
    +1 GD · 2d rest
    1.000
    STL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.024
    DAL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    STRENGTHSTL

    Joel Hofer has been a season-long wall

    Joel Hofer: +12.6 GSAx over 46 games (0.910 SV%).

    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)

    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)

    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.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    STL
    Expected in goal
    J. Binnington
    2 days rest.889 last start
    Backup Joel Hofer · +12.6 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    DAL
    Expected in goal
    R. Poirier
    2 days rest.917 last start
    Backup Jake Oettinger · +2.5 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
    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page