Rush defense leaked all night
Gave up 29 rush shots worth 2.47 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

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.
Chicago's 3-2 win reflected a larger dominance in the underlying shot quality, but the scoreline barely hints at it: the Blackhawks held just 42% of shot attempts (22-31), yet they controlled 57% of expected goals.
That gap between volume and danger tells the whole story. The Blackhawks generated 0.120 expected goals per shot; St. Louis managed 0.063, nearly half that. When one team creates more efficient chances, a close shot count becomes a decisive advantage.
S. Knight saved 29 of 31 for a 0.935 save percentage—nearly 1.8 goals above expected. J. Hofer faced the opposite. He kept 19 of 22, a 0.864 mark, but the Blues' lower-quality volume meant even outperforming his expected goals by 1.91 wasn't enough.
The Blackhawks struck on special teams. R. Kantserov backhanded home from 18 feet on the power play in the second, with T. Bertuzzi adding two assists on that sequence and earlier on I. Cole's shorthanded conversion. C. Parayko answered late in the third on the power play—a 35-foot wrist shot—but Chicago had already built breathing room.
Both teams squandered goals of expected value: the Blackhawks by 1.91, St. Louis by 1.77. Chicago's superior efficiency and goaltending margin held up despite the variance.
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.
Blackhawks hold off the Blues
The Blackhawks earned this one.
The board read STL 2, CHI 3. The chances read STL 3.8, CHI 4.9.
The Blues left 1.8 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.
A. Frondell makes it 0–1.
High-danger looks: STL 0 of 1, CHI 1 of 7.
Blackhawks 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 breakdownWrist shot from 22 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (a rebound), past J. Hofer. 3s after a CHI miss by T. Bertuzzi. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: I. Cole, T. Bertuzzi, A. Mangiapane, A. Vlasic, A. Frondell · against C. Parayko, R. Thomas, D. Holloway, J. Snuggerud, T. Lindstein
Wrist shot from 18 feet, a 22% chance (off the rush), past J. Hofer. 7s after a STL miss by P. Broberg. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: I. Cole, A. Vlasic, R. Greene, A. Frondell · against C. Fowler, P. Buchnevich, C. McMichael, J. Neighbours, D. Dvorsky
Backhander from 18 feet, a 12% chance (off the rush), past J. Hofer. Win probability moved 7 points.On the ice: R. Donato, E. Del Mastro, R. Greene, O. Moore, A. Levshunov · against C. Parayko, P. Buchnevich, C. McMichael, P. Broberg, M. McTavish
Wrist shot from 14 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past S. Knight. 4s after a STL takeaway by J. Berggren. Win probability moved 6 points.On the ice: C. Fowler, R. Thomas, P. Broberg, D. Holloway, J. Snuggerud · against T. Bertuzzi, A. Mangiapane, B. Byram, A. Vlasic, A. Frondell
Wrist shot from 35 feet, a 10% chance (off the rush), past S. Knight.On the ice: C. Parayko, R. Thomas, P. Broberg, D. Holloway, M. McTavish, J. Snuggerud · against A. Mangiapane, B. Byram, A. Vlasic, C. Smith, A. Frondell
score reads STL–CHI
CHI went 1-for-7 from high danger on 2.93 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.
STL finished -1.8 against expected, CHI -1.9.
Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 2-for-35, CHI 2-for-27. STL scored 2 of theirs off the rush.
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 →
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
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
Best skater on the ice by our rating: T. Bertuzzi (CHI), 19:49 of ice, 0-2, 71% of the expected goals while he was out.
| Skater | TOI | G-A | SOG | ixG | xG% | PD/PT | Impact | /60 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. BerggrenR | 11:23 | 1-0 | 3 | 0.30 | 51 | 1/0 | 1.22 | 6.44 | A+ |
| J. SnuggerudR | 19:26 | 0-1 | 3 | 0.26 | 43 | 1/0 | 0.80 | 2.46 | B |
| C. ParaykoD | 22:42 | 1-0 | 2 | 0.11 | 35 | 1/0 | 0.43 | 1.14 | B |
| D. HollowayL | 23:13 | 0-0 | 7 | 1.01 | 42 | 0/0 | 0.42 | 1.09 | B |
| T. LindsteinD | 16:27 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.01 | 66 | 0/0 | 0.33 | 1.19 | B |
| P. BrobergD | 28:28 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.51 | 41 | 2/0 | 0.17 | 0.36 | C |
| D. DvorskyR | 12:06 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.05 | 53 | 0/1 | 0.11 | 0.53 | C |
| R. ThomasC | 24:47 | 0-1 | 0 | 0.14 | 41 | 0/0 | 0.12 | 0.28 | C |
| J. NeighboursL | 12:18 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 53 | 0/0 | 0.07 | 0.32 | C |
| Z. DeanC | 6:43 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.28 | 58 | 0/1 | 0.04 | 0.36 | C |
| C. FowlerD | 21:02 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.16 | 39 | 0/0 | 0.04 | 0.12 | D |
| P. BuchnevichL | 15:57 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.22 | 33 | 0/0 | -0.04 | -0.14 | D |
| B. CarloD | 18:24 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 32 | 0/0 | -0.13 | -0.42 | D |
| A. ToropchenkoR | 10:48 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 31 | 0/0 | -0.13 | -0.72 | D |
| C. McMichaelL | 15:24 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.41 | 39 | 1/2 | -0.15 | -0.59 | D |
| P. SuterC | 9:25 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.01 | 38 | 0/1 | -0.17 | -1.09 | F |
| L. MaillouxD | 5:54 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.06 | 79 | 1/3 | -0.14 | -1.40 | F |
| M. McTavishC | 17:26 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.23 | 32 | 0/0 | -0.44 | -1.51 | F |
| Skater | TOI | G-A | SOG | ixG | xG% | PD/PT | Impact | /60 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T. BertuzziL | 19:49 | 0-2 | 0 | 0.49 | 71 | 0/0 | 2.32 | 7.03 | A+ |
| A. FrondellC | 22:04 | 1-0 | 4 | 0.55 | 66 | 0/0 | 1.77 | 4.82 | A+ |
| A. MangiapaneL | 15:18 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.82 | 71 | 0/0 | 1.32 | 5.18 | A |
| R. KantserovR | 16:07 | 1-0 | 2 | 0.26 | 70 | 0/0 | 1.34 | 5.00 | A |
| I. ColeD | 17:57 | 1-0 | 1 | 0.23 | 49 | 2/1 | 1.02 | 3.40 | A |
| A. VlasicD | 21:54 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.39 | 60 | 0/0 | 0.96 | 2.64 | A |
| N. LardisL | 14:32 | 0-1 | 1 | 0.12 | 60 | 0/0 | 0.77 | 3.18 | A |
| B. ByramD | 26:27 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.14 | 66 | 1/0 | 0.91 | 2.06 | B |
| T. TeravainenC | 15:49 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.65 | 64 | 0/0 | 0.76 | 2.89 | B |
| C. SmithR | 10:12 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.89 | 60 | 2/3 | 0.55 | 3.21 | B |
| A. LevshunovD | 17:53 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.11 | 47 | 0/0 | 0.21 | 0.69 | C |
| E. Del MastroD | 13:56 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.05 | 43 | 0/0 | 0.14 | 0.62 | C |
| R. GreeneC | 14:26 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.20 | 50 | 0/0 | 0.10 | 0.41 | C |
| S. RinzelD | 15:35 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.01 | 41 | 1/1 | -0.05 | -0.18 | D |
| R. DonatoC | 14:31 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 44 | 0/0 | -0.06 | -0.25 | D |
| D. ToninatoC | 8:25 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 14 | 0/0 | -0.10 | -0.68 | D |
| O. MooreC | 15:07 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 26 | 0/0 | -0.36 | -1.45 | F |
| D. BoucherL | 7:58 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 7 | 1/2 | -0.54 | -4.03 | F |
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: J. Binnington, T. Krug, R. Johnston, D. Dube, C. Rosen, P. Gahagen and 25 more. Scratched, CHI: P. Kane, R. Ellis, J. Greenway, B. Seney, C. Fitzgerald, A. Kayumov and 26 more. Referees Carter Sandlak and Stephen Hiff; linesmen Chris Martenet and Kilian McNamara.
STL Created 3.77 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 1 high-danger shots (0.19 xG) and 29 rush shots (2.47 xG).
CHI Created 4.91 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 7 high-danger shots (2.93 xG) and 21 rush shots (2.08 xG).
STL Allowed 4.91 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 7 high-danger shots (2.93 xG) and 21 rush shots (2.08 xG).
CHI Allowed 3.77 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 1 high-danger shots (0.19 xG) and 29 rush shots (2.47 xG).
STL Rush shots 29–21, rush xG 2.47–2.08 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
CHI Rush shots 21–29, rush xG 2.08–2.47 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
STL 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.77 PP xG.
CHI 1-for-4 on the power play (25%; league ≈21%) with 0.56 PP xG.
STL +1.91 goals saved above expected on 22 shots against.
CHI +1.77 goals saved above expected on 31 shots against.
STL Took 8 penalties for 27 PIM vs 7 for 17 on the other side.
CHI Took 7 penalties for 17 PIM vs 8 for 27 on the other side.
Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral
STL Finishing -1.77 goals vs xG plus +1.91 GSAx of save luck = +0.14 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
CHI Finishing -1.91 goals vs xG plus +1.77 GSAx of save luck = -0.14 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
Gave up 29 rush shots worth 2.47 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
2 goals on 29 rush shots worth 2.47 xG.
Gave up 21 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.
2 goals on 21 rush shots worth 2.08 xG.
Took 8 penalties for 27 minutes (opponent: 7 for 17).
Cut the stick infractions — the penalty differential is a controllable.
Scored 3 on 4.91 xG — -1.91 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.
Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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.
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.
The model projects a 3.1–2.9 St. Louis win with the Blues at 53% odds — which is to say, nearly a pick'em. These teams are separated by degrees, not distance.
Both goaltenders have been season-long anchors. Joel Hofer has posted 12.6 goals above his expected workload over 46 starts on a 0.910 save percentage. Spencer Knight has answered with 11.7 goals saved above expected over 55 games at 0.902. The goalie matchup will decide whether either team escapes on the right side of variance, but both have already earned the right to hold a game together.
Where St. Louis pulls ahead is in the underlying play. The Blues have carried 48.7% of expected goals at even strength to Chicago's 43.5%, and hold 48.3% of shot attempts against 46.0%. That edge is small but real — and in a game this tight, real edges matter.
Chicago's offense runs on Anton Frondell (1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes, 3 goals, 6 assists) and Frank Nazar (0.95 expected goals per 60 minutes, 10 goals, 26 assists). St. Louis counters with Jake Neighbours (0.81 expected goals per 60 minutes, 13 goals, 21 assists) and Pavel Buchnevich (0.79 expected goals per 60 minutes, 13 goals, 28 assists). Neither team will lack for chances.
The vulnerability lives in the crease. J. Binnington has surrendered 30.8 goals above his expected workload in 41 starts, posting an 87.3% save percentage. A. Soderblom sits at 88.0% across 26 starts, down 10.7 from expected — a 20.1-goal gap between these two. St. Louis must collapse the slot (Chicago scores 46% of its goals from high-danger chances, and Soderblom leaks them at 81.9%), while Chicago's task mirrors it (St. Louis scores 42% from the slot, and Binnington sits at 80.5%).
Watch the leverage in the slot. This game will be written there.
Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.
STL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 3.1–2.9 CHI; 17% chance it's tied after 60.
STL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.996) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.
Joel Hofer: +12.6 GSAx over 46 games (0.910 SV%).
Spencer Knight: +11.7 GSAx over 55 games (0.902 SV%).
Theo Lindstein is on ice for 2.42 xGA/60 and 21 high-danger shots against this season.
Hunt matchups against Theo Lindstein's shifts with the top line.
Anton Frondell is on ice for 3.02 xGA/60 and 9 high-danger shots against this season.
Hunt matchups against Anton Frondell's shifts with the top line.
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.