Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
← Fri, Oct 2 · the slate
Breakdown · STL at DAL

Blues shut out the Stars, 4-0

FinalFri, Oct 2
STLSt. Louis Blues4DALDallas Stars0
The verdict · stolen

The Blues stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.90–3.38 and won anyway.

STL 4 · DAL 0
◆ By the ModelOct 3, 12:03 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

St. Louis shut out Dallas, 4-0, with J. Hofer playing the game of his life in goal. The Blues were relentless off the rush. Dallas created scoring chances but never finished.

The offensive workload told a different tale. Dallas controlled play with 51% of shot attempts and led in expected goals, 3.38–2.90, yet left empty-handed. The Stars underperformed their workload by 3.38 goals—a gulf between process and result. St. Louis overperformed by 1.10.

Hofer stole the evening. The Blues goaltender posted 25 saves on 25 shots while facing 3.38 expected goals and allowing zero—a performance 3.38 goals better than predicted. St. Louis and Dallas created the same high-danger chances (4–4), but only the Blues finished. J. Oettinger faced 2.90 expected goals but allowed four, and that gap decided the game.

M. McTavish opened from 11 feet off a rebound—a 14% chance—just 3 seconds after C. Parayko's shot from the point. D. Dvorsky added the second from 23 feet off the rush, a 19% chance. Two empty-netters—J. Snuggerud from 64 feet, P. Suter from 58 feet, both 14% chances—sealed the shutout.

Special teams misfired for both (F for both). St. Louis was undisciplined; Dallas was not. The biggest transition concern: 32 rush shots worth 2.81 expected goals allowed, yet Dallas converted none.

The goals

  • STL 1–0, 01:34 of the first. M. McTavish, snap shot from 11 feet, a 14% chance by the model (a rebound), past J. Oettinger. Assists: C. Parayko, J. Snuggerud. 3 seconds after a STL shot by C. Parayko. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • STL 2–0, 13:05 of the second. D. Dvorsky, snap shot from 23 feet, a 19% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Oettinger. Assists: P. Broberg, P. Suter. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • STL 3–0, 17:37 of the third into an empty net. J. Snuggerud, wrist shot from 64 feet, a 14% chance by the model.
  • STL 4–0, 17:52 of the third into an empty net. P. Suter, wrist shot from 58 feet, a 14% chance by the model. Assists: C. McMichael, J. Hofer.

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 · Oct 2
STL
4
DAL
0

Blues shut out the Stars, 4-0

Chances 2.9 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
2.90
DAL
3.38
46% of the chances54%

The board read STL 4, DAL 0. The chances read STL 2.9, DAL 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
+1.1
goals above expected
STL2.90 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL3.38 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars left 3.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+16
win-probability points
70% → 86% for STL
DAL 100%the game, start to finish
STL 100%P1 · P2 · P3
STLP2 13:05

D. Dvorsky makes it 2–0.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:34STLM. McTavish14%1–0
  2. P2 13:05STLD. Dvorsky19%2–0
  3. P3 17:37STLJ. SnuggerudEN14%3–0
  4. P3 17:52STLP. SuterEN14%4–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
30 shots
4
Final
73 shots
DAL
43 shots
0
STL attackDAL attack
STL DAL Goal
30
shots · 4 in
43
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLDAL
1 / 4
0.82 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.78 xG
3 / 17
1.95 xG
Medium
0 / 22
2.32 xG
0 / 29
0.13 xG
Low
0 / 33
0.28 xG

The Stars went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Hofer
+3.4
STL · 25/25 · 60:00
Best save · a 20% chance, snap from 22 ft · P2 05:34
B
J. Oettinger
+0.6
DAL · 20/22 · 58:17
Best save · a 23% chance, snap from 13 ft · P1 06:23
Best skater on the ice
A+
STL
J. Snuggerud
R · impact 2.07
18:59
Ice time
1–1
G – A
0.51
Own xG
68%
xG share
Impact · top 4
J. Snuggerud2.1A+
M. McTavish1.4A+
P. Suter1.3A+
C. McMichael1.0A
Report card
STLDAL
OffenseB-B+
DefenseD-D+
TransitionDB+
Special teamsFF
GoaltendingA+B
DisciplineFA+
LuckA+F
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why STL won
  1. 01J. Hofer stole it
  2. 02Dangerous off the rush
  3. 03J. Snuggerud led the way
Why DAL lost
  1. 01Cold finishing night
  2. 02Rush defense leaked all night
  3. 03PDO ran cold
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues shut out the Stars, 4-0

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 11–7
  1. 01:34STLM. McTavish(C. Parayko, J. Snuggerud)1–0

    Snap shot from 11 feet, a 14% chance (a rebound), past J. Oettinger. 3s after a STL shot by C. Parayko. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: C. Fowler, P. Buchnevich, B. Carlo, C. McMichael, M. McTavish · against T. Myers, M. Rantanen, W. Johnston, L. Bichsel, J. Hryckowian

2ndshots 5–10
  1. 13:05STLD. Dvorsky(P. Broberg, P. Suter)2–0

    Snap shot from 23 feet, a 19% chance (off the rush), past J. Oettinger. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: C. Fowler, B. Carlo, R. Thomas, D. Holloway, J. Snuggerud · against E. Lindell, M. Rantanen, M. Heiskanen, W. Johnston, J. Hryckowian

3rdshots 8–8
  1. 17:37STLJ. Snuggerudempty net3–0

    Wrist shot from 64 feet, a 14% chance.

  2. 17:52STLP. Suterempty net(C. McMichael, J. Hofer)4–0

    Wrist shot from 58 feet, a 14% chance.

score reads STL–DAL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.90
STL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.080
STL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.90Expected goals3.38
DAL 54% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal25
4High-danger chances4
50All attempts (Corsi)59
Adjusted for score: STL 41% · DAL 60%
Faceoffs · DAL won71%off56%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL1 / 4 · 0.82 xG
DAL0 / 4 · 0.78 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL3 / 17 · 1.95 xG
DAL0 / 22 · 2.32 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL0 / 29 · 0.13 xG
DAL0 / 33 · 0.28 xG

DAL went 0-for-22 from medium danger on 2.32 expected goals — 2.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
4 G · 2.90 xG · +1.1
DAL
0 G · 3.38 xG · -3.4
012345

STL finished +1.1 against expected, DAL -3.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
SNAP2/15
WRIST2/7
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/20
DAL
SNAP0/29
WRIST0/8
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/2
SLAP0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/14
STL
DAL
Off the rush
1 G on 21
2.13 xG
0 G on 32
2.81 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3
0.30 xG
0 G on 3
0.28 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: STL went 2-for-15, DAL 0-for-29.

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 · 25/25 · 1.000
started · 60:00
+3.4
saved above expected
A+
the night
Attempts faced
45
Avg chance faced
7.5%
Stopped vs expected
1.000 vs 0.925
Rebounds allowed
3
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.8+0.8
Medium0/222.3+2.3
Low0/190.3+0.3
Shorthanded0/121.2+1.2
Tips & deflections0/50.4+0.4
The save
20% chance stopped, a snap from 22 ft · P2 05:34

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. Oettinger
DAL · 20/22 · .909
started · 58:17
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
Attempts faced
27
Avg chance faced
9.7%
Stopped vs expected
0.926 vs 0.903
Rebounds allowed
3 · 1 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.8-0.2
Medium1/151.7+0.7
Low0/80.1+0.1
Shorthanded0/50.5+0.5
Tips & deflections0/10.1+0.1
The save
23% chance stopped, a snap from 13 ft · P1 06:23
The one to have back
14% chance went in, a snap from 11 ft · P1 01:34

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. Snuggerud (STL), 18:59 of ice, 1-1, 68% of the expected goals while he was out.

STL18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
J. SnuggerudR18:591-168A+
M. McTavishC14:361-093A+
P. SuterC14:251-118A+
C. McMichaelL13:030-187A
P. BrobergD23:080-142A
D. DvorskyR13:031-028A
C. ParaykoD20:270-122B
D. HollowayL19:210-068C
A. JiricekD16:350-059C
C. FowlerD22:380-055C
P. BuchnevichL17:110-052C
B. CarloD15:270-048D
R. ThomasC22:590-047D
R. JohnstonL9:560-00D
J. BerggrenR13:480-041F
T. LindsteinD15:130-027F
A. ToropchenkoR5:080-06F
J. NeighboursL13:030-028F
DAL18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
S. SteelC11:190-0100A
W. JohnstonC21:490-067A
A. HyryR13:070-078B
J. RobertsonL19:390-067B
J. BennL10:030-0100B
R. HintzC16:570-074B
M. RantanenR22:100-065B
T. SeguinC14:550-064B
M. HeiskanenD26:450-058C
T. MyersD13:130-060C
N. LundkvistD15:220-058C
J. HryckowianC17:120-053C
T. HarleyD20:590-064D
E. LindellD18:430-035D
L. BichselD16:020-043D
J. KivirantaL10:180-011D
R. FaksaC11:070-021D
O. BäckC12:030-012F

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: D. Dube, J. Barron, Z. Dean. Scratched, DAL: C. Blackwell, K. Capobianco. Referees Chris Rooney and Corey Syvret; linesmen Ryan Gibbons and Matt MacPherson.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionSTLDAL
Offense
▸Basis

STL Created 2.90 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.82 xG) and 21 rush shots (2.13 xG).

DAL Created 3.38 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.78 xG) and 32 rush shots (2.81 xG).

B-
82
B+
89
Defense
▸Basis

STL Allowed 3.38 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.78 xG) and 32 rush shots (2.81 xG).

DAL Allowed 2.90 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.82 xG) and 21 rush shots (2.13 xG).

D-
61
D+
68
Transition
▸Basis

STL Rush shots 21–32, rush xG 2.13–2.81 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

DAL Rush shots 32–21, rush xG 2.81–2.13 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

D
63
B+
87
Special teams
▸Basis

STL 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.53 PP xG.

DAL 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.95 PP xG.

F
53
F
58
Goaltending
▸Basis

STL +3.38 goals saved above expected on 25 shots against.

DAL +0.90 goals saved above expected on 22 shots against.

A+
100
B
84
Discipline
▸Basis

STL Took 6 penalties for 26 PIM vs 5 for 15 on the other side.

DAL Took 5 penalties for 15 PIM vs 6 for 26 on the other side.

F
48
A+
100
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

STL Finishing +1.10 goals vs xG plus +3.38 GSAx of save luck = +4.48 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

DAL Finishing -3.38 goals vs xG plus +0.90 GSAx of save luck = -2.48 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

A+
100
F
55
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
STRENGTHSTL

J. Hofer stole it

J. Hofer stopped 25 of 25 (1.000) — +3.38 goals saved above expected in a 4-goal game.

LUCKDAL

Cold finishing night

Scored 0 on 3.38 xG — -3.38 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

WARNINGSTL

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 32 rush shots worth 2.81 xG (0 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 21 rush shots worth 2.13 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

WARNINGSTL

Paraded to the penalty box

Took 6 penalties for 26 minutes (opponent: 5 for 15).

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

STRENGTHDAL

Dangerous off the rush

0 goals on 32 rush shots worth 2.81 xG.

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
STL
30 shots
4
Final
73 shots
DAL
43 shots
0
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
J. Snuggerud
#21 · R · STL
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:59 on ice · +2
P. Suter
#22 · C · STL
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 14:25 on ice · +2
P. Broberg
#6 · D · STL
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:08 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Oct 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 2, 12:09 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

Dallas is favored by a narrow margin in a game between evenly matched teams. The model projects a 2.8–3.2 outcome with the Stars at 56% win probability—a lead so thin it's barely an advantage.

Goaltending will decide this. When two teams are this close across all measurable categories, the play between the pipes determines who wins.

The Stars' most productive scoring zone over their last five games has been the point. Dallas has scored 3 goals on 15 shots from the perimeter (20%), a rate that shows their primary threat. St. Louis must deny that lane; allowing the Stars to work freely from the point is an easy way to fall behind.

Data: NHL API, Backcheck expected goals model

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
Form · No games yet
STL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 5d rest
DAL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 6d rest
1.000
STL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.000
DAL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALDAL

Hot Zone: Stars

Their most productive scoring zone over last 5 games.

Most goals from point (3G on 15 shots, 20%) — deny that lane

Things to watch
  • Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
STL
preseason · vs CHI · Sat, Sep 26
Expected in goal
J. Hofer
5 days rest.864 last start57:28 played
Forwards · 12
  • A. Toropchenko10:48
  • D. Dvorsky12:06
  • R. Thomas24:47
  • J. Snuggerud19:24
  • P. Suter09:27
  • J. Berggren11:23
  • Z. Dean06:43
  • J. Neighbours12:18
  • C. McMichael15:24
  • D. Holloway23:13
  • M. McTavish17:26
  • P. Buchnevich15:57
Defence · 6
  • T. Lindstein16:27
  • P. Broberg28:28
  • C. Fowler21:02
  • L. Mailloux05:54
  • B. Carlo18:24
  • C. Parayko22:42
DAL
preseason · vs MIN · Fri, Sep 25
Expected in goal
C. DeSmith
6 days rest.963 last start60:00 played
Forwards · 12
  • O. Bäck11:39
  • R. Faksa11:57
  • J. Benn12:41
  • S. Steel12:59
  • J. Robertson19:29
  • J. Kiviranta10:54
  • R. Hintz17:50
  • A. Hyry11:47
  • J. Hryckowian15:03
  • W. Johnston20:39
  • T. Seguin13:57
  • M. Rantanen20:35
Defence · 6
  • M. Heiskanen25:35
  • N. Lundkvist16:59
  • L. Bichsel15:10
  • E. Lindell19:09
  • T. Harley21:56
  • T. Myers14:49

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.

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page