Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
← Thu, Sep 24 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at STL · Preseason

Blues shut out the Blackhawks, 1-0

FinalThu, Sep 24
CHIChicago Blackhawks0STLSt. Louis Blues1
The verdict · earned

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

CHI 0 · 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 26, 1:15 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

St. Louis shut down Chicago. C. Rosen's slap shot at 3:39 of the third period was the only goal St. Louis needed, scored on the rush six seconds after an O. Moore giveaway. The Blues dominated underneath, but the margin was tighter than the numbers suggested.

St. Louis controlled 4.02 expected goals to Chicago's 1.79, a 69% share that should have produced a blowout. The Blues held 68% of shot attempts, but A. Soderblom and missed finishes kept it at one.

A. Soderblom posted a 0.972 save percentage, stopping 3.02 goals above expected on 35 of 36 shots. J. Binnington was perfect (17 for 17) and stopped 1.79 more goals than expected.

The Blues dominated everywhere. They won high-danger chances 2–1, and when you hold that much of the game, one goal is usually enough. Chicago took nine penalties for 32 minutes against St. Louis's six for 15. Neither power play mattered (both F).

The Blues underperformed their expected goals by 3.02; the Blackhawks underperformed by 1.79. St. Louis wasted chances but finished when it counted.

The goals

  • STL 0–1, 03:39 of the third. C. Rosen, slap shot from 35 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Soderblom. Assists: C. McMichael, P. Buchnevich. 6 seconds after a CHI giveaway by O. Moore. Win probability moved 27 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 24
CHI
0
STL
1

Blues shut out the Blackhawks, 1-0

Chances 1.8 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
1.79
STL
4.02
31% of the chances69%

The board read CHI 0, STL 1. The chances read CHI 1.8, STL 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
−3.0
goals above expected
STL4.02 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI1.79 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 1.8 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+27
win-probability points
53% → 79% for STL
STL 100%the game, start to finish
CHI 100%P1 · P2 · P3
STLP3 03:39

C. Rosen makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P3 03:39STLC. Rosen8%0–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
22 shots
0
Final
72 shots
STL
50 shots
1
CHI attackSTL attack
CHI STL Goal
22
shots · 0 in
50
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHISTL
0 / 1
0.19 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.69 xG
0 / 16
1.52 xG
Medium
1 / 30
2.89 xG
0 / 13
0.09 xG
Low
0 / 26
0.44 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 0 of 1, STL 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Soderblom
+2.5
CHI · 35/36 · 58:02
Best save · a 19% chance, snap from 25 ft · P3 14:52
A
J. Binnington
+1.8
STL · 17/17 · 60:00
Best save · a 19% chance, snap from 28 ft · P2 08:06
Best skater on the ice
A+
STL
P. Buchnevich
L · impact 1.75
19:04
Ice time
0–1
G – A
0.20
Own xG
82%
xG share
Impact · top 4
P. Buchnevich1.7A+
C. McMichael1.4A+
C. Rosen1.3A+
D. Dvorsky1.3A
Report card
CHISTL
OffenseDA
DefenseFB
TransitionFA+
Special teamsFF
GoaltendingA+A
DisciplineFA+
LuckBD
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why STL won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Won on the merits
  3. 03J. Binnington tilted the crease
Why CHI lost
  1. 01Paraded to the penalty box
  2. 02Rush defense leaked all night
  3. 03Cold finishing night
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues shut out the Blackhawks, 1-0

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 5–11no goals
    2ndshots 7–12no goals
      3rdshots 5–13
      1. 03:39STLC. Rosen(C. McMichael, P. Buchnevich)0–1

        Slap shot from 35 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past A. Soderblom. 6s after a CHI giveaway by O. Moore. Win probability moved 27 points.On the ice: D. Dube, C. Rosen, J. Neighbours, A. Jiricek · against P. Kane, W. Kaiser, R. Kantserov, A. Levshunov

      score reads CHI–STL

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      4.02
      STL chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −3.0
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.017
      STL puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      65.9%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      1.79Expected goals4.02
      STL 69% of the chance quality
      17Shots on goal36
      1High-danger chances2
      30All attempts (Corsi)58
      Adjusted for score: CHI 35% · STL 65%
      Faceoffs · STL won56%off64%neu38%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      CHI0 / 1 · 0.19 xG
      STL0 / 2 · 0.69 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      CHI0 / 16 · 1.52 xG
      STL1 / 30 · 2.89 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      CHI0 / 13 · 0.09 xG
      STL0 / 26 · 0.44 xG

      STL went 1-for-30 from medium danger on 2.89 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      CHI
      0 G · 1.79 xG · -1.8
      STL
      1 G · 4.02 xG · -3.0
      012345

      CHI finished -1.8 against expected, STL -3.0.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      CHI
      WRIST0/8
      SLAP0/6
      SNAP0/4
      TIP IN0/1
      BACKHAND0/2
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      DEFLECTED0/1
      OTHER0/8
      STL
      WRIST0/25
      SLAP1/7
      SNAP0/4
      TIP IN0/6
      BACKHAND0/3
      WRAP AROUND0/4
      DEFLECTED0/1
      OTHER0/8
      CHI
      STL
      Off the rush
      0 G on 14
      1.44 xG
      1 G on 33
      2.74 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 2
      0.12 xG
      0 G on 6
      0.36 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 0-for-8, STL 0-for-25.

      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. Soderblom
      CHI · 35/36 · .972
      started · 58:02 · loss
      +2.5
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      Attempts faced
      49
      Avg chance faced
      7.2%
      Stopped vs expected
      0.980 vs 0.928
      Rebounds allowed
      6
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/10.2+0.2
      Medium1/302.9+1.9
      Low0/180.4+0.4
      Shorthanded0/111.0+1.0
      Tips & deflections0/70.4+0.4
      The save
      19% chance stopped, a snap from 25 ft · P3 14:52
      The one to have back
      8% chance went in, a slap from 35 ft · P3 03:39

      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 · 17/17 · 1.000
      started · 60:00 · win
      +1.8
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      Attempts faced
      22
      Avg chance faced
      8.2%
      Stopped vs expected
      1.000 vs 0.918
      Rebounds allowed
      2
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/10.2+0.2
      Medium0/161.5+1.5
      Low0/50.1+0.1
      Shorthanded0/60.6+0.6
      Tips & deflections0/20.1+0.1
      The save
      19% chance stopped, a snap from 28 ft · P2 08:06

      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: P. Buchnevich (STL), 19:04 of ice, 0-1, 82% of the expected goals while he was out.

      CHI18 skaters
      SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
      O. MooreC13:100-064B
      R. KantserovR20:420-053B
      W. KaiserD24:300-042C
      F. NazarC21:250-041C
      P. KaneR19:390-052C
      K. KorchinskiD15:120-037C
      S. BoisvertC9:130-040D
      E. Del MastroD18:070-021D
      D. BoucherL7:480-00D
      A. SpellacyR8:340-022D
      A. LevshunovD24:430-029D
      N. LardisL12:510-025D
      R. GreeneC17:210-026D
      L. SlaggertL11:430-016F
      C. MackeyD9:380-017F
      S. RinzelD21:400-025F
      C. MylymokL8:370-00F
      A. FrondellC21:530-021F
      STL18 skaters
      SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
      P. BuchnevichL19:040-182A+
      C. McMichaelL18:240-180A+
      C. RosenD17:071-065A+
      D. DvorskyR17:270-0100A
      A. KaskimakiC15:180-075A
      O. SundqvistC11:580-082A
      C. FowlerD25:240-079A
      Z. DeanC13:230-079A
      N. WalkerL13:080-066B
      A. JiricekD17:040-074B
      J. NeighboursL18:110-080B
      C. ParaykoD20:270-050B
      D. DubeC16:090-070B
      D. PetersonC12:460-054C
      B. CarloD15:320-066C
      T. LindsteinD18:250-058C
      J. FinleyC11:160-033C
      R. JohnstonL8:570-050D

      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, CHI: I. Cole, R. Ellis, T. Teravainen, D. Toninato, T. Bertuzzi, R. Donato and 31 more. Scratched, STL: T. Krug, R. Thomas, A. Toropchenko, P. Suter, P. Gahagen, J. Hofer and 32 more. Referees Tom Chmielewski and Nick Isaacson; linesmen Dylan Blujus and Joe Mahon.

      Graded against a league-average game

      Report card

      Seven dimensions · A+ to F
      DimensionCHISTL
      Offense
      ▸Basis

      CHI Created 1.79 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 1 high-danger shots (0.19 xG) and 14 rush shots (1.44 xG).

      STL Created 4.02 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.69 xG) and 33 rush shots (2.74 xG).

      D
      65
      A
      95
      Defense
      ▸Basis

      CHI Allowed 4.02 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.69 xG) and 33 rush shots (2.74 xG).

      STL Allowed 1.79 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 1 high-danger shots (0.19 xG) and 14 rush shots (1.44 xG).

      F
      55
      B
      85
      Transition
      ▸Basis

      CHI Rush shots 14–33, rush xG 1.44–2.74 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

      STL Rush shots 33–14, rush xG 2.74–1.44 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

      F
      52
      A+
      98
      Special teams
      ▸Basis

      CHI 0-for-5 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.43 PP xG.

      STL 0-for-7 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.97 PP xG.

      F
      51
      F
      54
      Goaltending
      ▸Basis

      CHI +3.02 goals saved above expected on 36 shots against.

      STL +1.79 goals saved above expected on 17 shots against.

      A+
      100
      A
      93
      Discipline
      ▸Basis

      CHI Took 9 penalties for 32 PIM vs 6 for 15 on the other side.

      STL Took 6 penalties for 15 PIM vs 9 for 32 on the other side.

      F
      32
      A+
      100
      Luck

      Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

      ▸Basis

      CHI Finishing -1.79 goals vs xG plus +3.02 GSAx of save luck = +1.23 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

      STL Finishing -3.02 goals vs xG plus +1.79 GSAx of save luck = -1.23 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
      STRENGTHCHI

      A. Soderblom stole it

      A. Soderblom stopped 35 of 36 (0.972) — +3.02 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

      WARNINGCHI

      Paraded to the penalty box

      Took 9 penalties for 32 minutes (opponent: 6 for 15).

      Cut the stick infractions — the penalty differential is a controllable.

      LUCKSTL

      Cold finishing night

      Scored 1 on 4.02 xG — -3.02 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

      WARNINGCHI

      Rush defense leaked all night

      Gave up 33 rush shots worth 2.74 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

      STRENGTHSTL

      Dangerous off the rush

      1 goals on 33 rush shots worth 2.74 xG.

      STRENGTHSTL

      Won on the merits

      The Blues controlled 69% of expected goals (4.02–1.79) and won 1-0 — result matched process.

      72 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      CHI
      22 shots
      0
      Final
      72 shots
      STL
      50 shots
      1
      CHI attackSTL attack
      CHI STL Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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
      P. Buchnevich
      #89 · L · STL
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:04 on ice · +1
      C. McMichael
      #77 · L · STL
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 18:24 on ice · +1
      C. Rosen
      #43 · D · STL
      1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 17:07 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page