Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
Breakdown · STL at CHI · Preseason

Blackhawks hold off the Blues

The verdict · earned

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

STL 2 · CHI 3
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 27, 12:17 AMxG: 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

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.

The goals

  • CHI 0–1, 06:27 of the first. A. Frondell, wrist shot from 22 feet, an 8% chance by the model (a rebound), past J. Hofer. Assists: T. Bertuzzi. 3 seconds after a CHI missed shot by T. Bertuzzi. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • CHI 0–2, 07:00 of the second shorthanded. I. Cole, wrist shot from 18 feet, a 22% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Hofer. 7 seconds after a STL missed shot by P. Broberg. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • CHI 0–3, 09:31 of the second on the power play. R. Kantserov, backhander from 18 feet, a 12% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Hofer. Assists: T. Bertuzzi, N. Lardis. Win probability moved 7 points.
  • STL 1–3, 19:04 of the second. J. Berggren, wrist shot from 14 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past S. Knight. 4 seconds after a STL takeaway by J. Berggren. Win probability moved 6 points.
  • STL 2–3, 18:44 of the third on the power play. C. Parayko, wrist shot from 35 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past S. Knight. Assists: J. Snuggerud, R. Thomas.

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 26
STL
2
CHI
3

Blackhawks hold off the Blues

Chances 3.8 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
3.77
CHI
4.91
43% of the chances57%

The board read STL 2, CHI 3. The chances read STL 3.8, CHI 4.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
−1.9
goals above expected
CHI4.91 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
STL3.77 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blues 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
+14
win-probability points
54% → 68% for CHI
CHI 100%the game, start to finish
STL 100%P1 · P2 · P3
CHIP1 06:27

A. Frondell makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 06:27CHIA. Frondell8%0–1
  2. P2 07:00CHII. ColeSH22%0–2
  3. P2 09:31CHIR. KantserovPP12%0–3
  4. P2 19:04STLJ. Berggren14%1–3
  5. P3 18:44STLC. ParaykoPP10%2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
47 shots
2
Final
82 shots
CHI
35 shots
3
STL attackCHI attack
STL CHI Goal
47
shots · 2 in
35
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLCHI
0 / 1
0.19 xG
High danger
1 / 7
2.93 xG
2 / 25
2.97 xG
Medium
2 / 16
1.69 xG
0 / 34
0.61 xG
Low
0 / 18
0.30 xG

High-danger looks: STL 0 of 1, CHI 1 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Knight
+1.8
CHI · 29/31 · 60:00
Best save · a 19% chance, backhand from 8 ft · P2 08:24
D
J. Hofer
−0.6
STL · 19/22 · 57:28
Best save · a 20% chance, wrist from 9 ft · P2 18:20
Best skater on the ice
A+
CHI
T. Bertuzzi
L · impact 2.32
19:49
Ice time
0–2
G – A
0.49
Own xG
71%
xG share
Impact · top 4
T. Bertuzzi2.3A+
A. Frondell1.8A+
J. Berggren1.2A+
A. Mangiapane1.3A
Report card
STLCHI
OffenseB+A+
DefenseFD-
TransitionBD+
Special teamsFC+
GoaltendingAA
DisciplineFA+
LuckCC
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why CHI won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02S. Knight tilted the crease
  3. 03Power play cashed in
Why STL lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Paraded to the penalty box
  3. 03Cold finishing night
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

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 breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 8–5
  1. 06:27CHIA. Frondell(T. Bertuzzi)0–1

    Wrist 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

2ndshots 9–9
  1. 07:00CHII. Coleshorthanded0–2

    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

  2. 09:31CHIR. Kantserovpower play(T. Bertuzzi, N. Lardis)0–3

    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

  3. 19:04STLJ. Berggren1–3

    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

3rdshots 14–8
  1. 18:44STLC. Paraykopower play(J. Snuggerud, R. Thomas)2–3

    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

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.91
CHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.9
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.040
CHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
40.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.77Expected goals4.91
CHI 57% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal22
1High-danger chances7
60All attempts (Corsi)41
Adjusted for score: STL 65% · CHI 35%
Faceoffs · CHI won35%off45%neu61%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL0 / 1 · 0.19 xG
CHI1 / 7 · 2.93 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL2 / 25 · 2.97 xG
CHI2 / 16 · 1.69 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL0 / 34 · 0.61 xG
CHI0 / 18 · 0.30 xG

CHI went 1-for-7 from high danger on 2.93 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
2 G · 3.77 xG · -1.8
CHI
3 G · 4.91 xG · -1.9
0123456

STL finished -1.8 against expected, CHI -1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST2/35
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP0/2
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
TIP IN0/0
OTHER0/13
CHI
WRIST2/27
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND1/3
SNAP0/1
BAT0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
TIP IN0/1
OTHER0/6
STL
CHI
Off the rush
2 G on 29
2.47 xG
2 G on 21
2.08 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7
0.71 xG
1 G on 1
0.08 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 2-for-35, CHI 2-for-27. STL 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 · 19/22 · .864
started · 57:28 · loss
-0.6
saved above expected
D
the night
Attempts faced
30
Avg chance faced
8.0%
Stopped vs expected
0.900 vs 0.920
Rebounds allowed
1 · 1 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.4-0.6
Medium2/161.7-0.3
Low0/120.3+0.3
Shorthanded1/60.6-0.4
Tips & deflections0/20.2+0.2
The save
20% chance stopped, a wrist from 9 ft · P2 18:20
The one to have back
8% chance went in, a wrist from 22 ft · P1 06:27

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 · 29/31 · .935
started · 60:00 · win
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
Attempts faced
47
Avg chance faced
8.0%
Stopped vs expected
0.957 vs 0.920
Rebounds allowed
7
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium2/253.0+1.0
Low0/210.6+0.6
Shorthanded1/121.1+0.1
The save
19% chance stopped, a backhand from 8 ft · P2 08:24
The one to have back
10% chance went in, a wrist from 35 ft · P3 18:44

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: T. Bertuzzi (CHI), 19:49 of ice, 0-2, 71% of the expected goals while he was out.

STL18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
J. BerggrenR11:231-051A+
J. SnuggerudR19:260-143B
C. ParaykoD22:421-035B
D. HollowayL23:130-042B
T. LindsteinD16:270-066B
P. BrobergD28:280-041C
D. DvorskyR12:060-053C
R. ThomasC24:470-141C
J. NeighboursL12:180-053C
Z. DeanC6:430-058C
C. FowlerD21:020-039D
P. BuchnevichL15:570-033D
B. CarloD18:240-032D
A. ToropchenkoR10:480-031D
C. McMichaelL15:240-039D
P. SuterC9:250-038F
L. MaillouxD5:540-079F
M. McTavishC17:260-032F
CHI18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
T. BertuzziL19:490-271A+
A. FrondellC22:041-066A+
A. MangiapaneL15:180-071A
R. KantserovR16:071-070A
I. ColeD17:571-049A
A. VlasicD21:540-060A
N. LardisL14:320-160A
B. ByramD26:270-066B
T. TeravainenC15:490-064B
C. SmithR10:120-060B
A. LevshunovD17:530-047C
E. Del MastroD13:560-043C
R. GreeneC14:260-050C
S. RinzelD15:350-041D
R. DonatoC14:310-044D
D. ToninatoC8:250-014D
O. MooreC15:070-026F
D. BoucherL7:580-07F

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.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionSTLCHI
Offense
▸Basis

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).

B+
89
A+
100
Defense
▸Basis

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).

F
40
D-
61
Transition
▸Basis

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).

B
83
D+
67
Special teams
▸Basis

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.

F
56
C+
79
Goaltending
▸Basis

STL +1.91 goals saved above expected on 22 shots against.

CHI +1.77 goals saved above expected on 31 shots against.

A
94
A
93
Discipline
▸Basis

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.

F
50
A+
100
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

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.

C
76
C
74
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGCHI

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.

STRENGTHSTL

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 29 rush shots worth 2.47 xG.

WARNINGSTL

Rush defense leaked all night

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.

STRENGTHCHI

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 21 rush shots worth 2.08 xG.

WARNINGSTL

Paraded to the penalty box

Took 8 penalties for 27 minutes (opponent: 7 for 17).

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

LUCKCHI

Cold finishing night

Scored 3 on 4.91 xG — -1.91 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
STL
47 shots
2
Final
82 shots
CHI
35 shots
3
STL attackCHI attack
STL CHI Goal

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.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
T. Bertuzzi
#59 · L · CHI
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 19:49 on ice
R. Thomas
#18 · C · STL
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 24:47 on ice
C. Parayko
#55 · D · STL
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:42 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Sep 26
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 26, 1:44 PMEdited 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 3.1–2.9 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.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 53%
53%
STL
Model favorite
53%
47%
STL50CHI

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.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG
STL← edge
edge →CHI
48.7%43.5%
48.3%46.0%
2.802.62
2.953.40
2.802.56
3.103.29
1.0000.996

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.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
STL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
CHI
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.000
STL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.996
CHI 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%).

STRENGTHCHI

Spencer Knight has been a season-long wall

Spencer Knight: +11.7 GSAx over 55 games (0.902 SV%).

WARNINGSTL

Exploitable minutes: Theo Lindstein

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.

WARNINGCHI

Exploitable minutes: Anton Frondell

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.

Where the edges live
  • The Blues own the underlying play — 48.7% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.
Things to watch
  • The Blues own the underlying play — 48.7% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.
  • Goalie matchup: J. Binnington (-30.8 GSAx in 41 GP, 87.3% SV) vs A. Soderblom (-10.7 GSAx in 26 GP, 88.0% SV).
  • A. Soderblom has the GSAx edge — 20.1 goals above his counterpart this season.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
STL
preseason · vs CHI · Thu, Sep 24
Expected in goal
J. Binnington
1 day rest1.000 last start60:00 played
Backup Joel Hofer · +12.6 GSAx this season
Forwards · 12
  • D. Dvorsky17:27
  • N. Walker13:08
  • D. Peterson12:46
  • J. Finley11:16
  • A. Kaskimaki15:18
  • R. Johnston08:57
  • Z. Dean13:23
  • J. Neighbours18:11
  • D. Dube16:09
  • O. Sundqvist11:58
  • C. McMichael18:24
  • P. Buchnevich19:04
Defence · 6
  • T. Lindstein18:25
  • C. Fowler25:24
  • B. Carlo15:32
  • A. Jiricek17:04
  • C. Rosen17:07
  • C. Parayko20:27
CHI
preseason · vs STL · Thu, Sep 24
Expected in goal
A. Soderblom
1 day rest.972 last start58:02 played
Backup Spencer Knight · +11.7 GSAx this season
Forwards · 12
  • O. Moore13:10
  • A. Frondell21:53
  • R. Greene17:21
  • D. Boucher07:48
  • C. Mylymok08:37
  • N. Lardis12:51
  • A. Spellacy08:34
  • R. Kantserov20:42
  • L. Slaggert11:43
  • P. Kane19:39
  • S. Boisvert09:13
  • F. Nazar21:25
Defence · 6
  • S. Rinzel21:40
  • K. Korchinski15:12
  • C. Mackey09:38
  • E. Del Mastro18:07
  • W. Kaiser24:30
  • A. Levshunov24:43

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
Jake Neighbours13G 21A
0.81 xG/60 · 7 HD · 15.1% sh
Pavel Buchnevich13G 28A
0.79 xG/60 · 4 HD · 9.2% sh
CHI
Anton Frondell3G 6A
1.06 xG/60 · 1 HD · 8.3% sh
Frank Nazar10G 26A
0.95 xG/60 · 7 HD · 7.2% sh
Keep going

Where to next