Rush defense leaked all night
Gave up 28 rush shots worth 2.52 xG (5 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

The Avalanche rolled past the Blues 6-1. M. Necas scored twice, and C. Makar, A. Lehkonen, J. Manson and N. Roy also scored. D. Dvorsky's backhander in the third was St. Louis's only goal.
The scoreboard says rout, and the process says something closer. Colorado finished 2.44 goals above what its chances should have produced, which flatters the final margin.
Even so, the underlying numbers belong to Colorado. The Avalanche held 58% of shot attempts. At five-on-five, they also took 64% of expected goals, which weights each chance by how likely it was to go in.
Quality backed up the volume. Colorado took four high-danger chances to none for St. Louis.
Colorado was lethal off the rush, scoring five goals on 28 rush chances.
J. Binnington let in 2.44 more goals than the shots against him should have allowed. M. Blackwood, at the other end, stopped 1.05 more goals than the shots he faced should have allowed.
Avalanche run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers
The Avalanche earned this one.
The board read STL 1, COL 6. The chances read STL 2.0, COL 3.6.
The Avalanche scored 2.4 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.
C. Makar makes it 0–1.
High-danger looks: STL 0 of 0, COL 1 of 4.
Avalanche run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers
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 7 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Binnington. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: N. Kadri, B. Nelson, J. Manson, G. Landeskog, S. Malinski · against P. Buchnevich, B. Carlo, C. McMichael, M. McTavish, T. Lindstein
Snap shot from 28 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Binnington. Win probability moved 12 points.On the ice: J. Schwartz, B. Kulak, N. Juulsen, F. Svechkov, T. Hughes · against C. Fowler, J. Berggren, J. Neighbours, D. Dvorsky, A. Jiricek
Snap shot from 58 feet, a 2% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past J. Binnington. Win probability moved 7 points.On the ice: B. Burns, B. Kulak, N. Roy, P. Kelly, T. Hughes · against C. Fowler, D. Dube, P. Suter, Z. Dean, A. Jiricek
Snap shot from 18 feet, a 22% chance (off the rush), past J. Binnington. 2s after a COL takeaway by A. Lehkonen.On the ice: N. Kadri, J. Schwartz, J. Manson, S. Malinski, T. Hughes · against C. Parayko, D. Dube, P. Suter, P. Broberg, Z. Dean
Wrist shot from 23 feet, a 12% chance (off the rush), past J. Binnington. 5s after a STL giveaway by A. Jiricek.On the ice: J. Manson, G. Landeskog, N. MacKinnon, M. Necas, S. Malinski · against J. Berggren, P. Broberg, J. Neighbours, D. Dvorsky, A. Jiricek
Backhander from 8 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Binnington.On the ice: N. Kadri, B. Nelson, J. Manson, A. Lehkonen, S. Malinski · against P. Buchnevich, B. Carlo, C. McMichael, M. McTavish, T. Lindstein
Backhander from 11 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past M. Blackwood. 4s after a STL block.On the ice: C. Parayko, D. Dube, P. Suter, P. Broberg, Z. Dean · against B. Nelson, D. Toews, N. Juulsen, P. Kelly, F. Svechkov
score reads STL–COL
COL went 4-for-21 from medium danger on 2.26 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.
STL finished -1.1 against expected, COL +2.4.
Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-23, COL 2-for-24. COL scored 5 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: M. Necas (COL), 19:21 of ice, 2-1, 73% of the expected goals while he was out.
| Skater | TOI | G-A | SOG | ixG | xG% | PD/PT | Impact | /60 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D. DvorskyR | 12:17 | 1-0 | 3 | 0.30 | 37 | 0/1 | 0.69 | 3.39 | B |
| T. LindsteinD | 14:26 | 0-1 | 0 | 0.00 | 27 | 0/0 | 0.30 | 1.27 | B |
| D. HollowayL | 15:35 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.19 | 51 | 0/0 | 0.27 | 1.05 | C |
| C. McMichaelL | 15:19 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.14 | 42 | 1/0 | 0.25 | 0.98 | C |
| J. SnuggerudR | 14:51 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.04 | 64 | 0/0 | 0.24 | 0.96 | C |
| M. McTavishC | 14:57 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.20 | 38 | 0/0 | 0.20 | 0.80 | C |
| C. FowlerD | 23:24 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.01 | 50 | 0/0 | 0.22 | 0.57 | C |
| C. ParaykoD | 20:45 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.13 | 38 | 0/0 | 0.10 | 0.29 | D |
| P. BuchnevichL | 15:43 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.16 | 40 | 0/0 | 0.01 | 0.03 | D |
| R. ThomasC | 16:30 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.17 | 44 | 0/0 | -0.06 | -0.20 | D |
| P. BrobergD | 20:16 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.01 | 31 | 0/0 | -0.07 | -0.20 | D |
| A. JiricekD | 19:43 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.16 | 33 | 0/0 | -0.08 | -0.23 | D |
| J. NeighboursL | 13:43 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.13 | 28 | 0/0 | -0.10 | -0.42 | D |
| J. BerggrenR | 14:48 | 0-0 | 3 | 0.38 | 28 | 0/0 | -0.10 | -0.41 | F |
| B. CarloD | 17:36 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.03 | 35 | 0/0 | -0.12 | -0.39 | F |
| P. SuterC | 16:14 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 38 | 0/0 | -0.17 | -0.63 | F |
| Z. DeanC | 12:37 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 40 | 1/2 | -0.28 | -1.35 | F |
| D. DubeC | 13:16 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 24 | 0/1 | -0.47 | -2.15 | F |
| Skater | TOI | G-A | SOG | ixG | xG% | PD/PT | Impact | /60 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M. NecasC | 19:21 | 2-1 | 4 | 0.52 | 73 | 1/0 | 3.12 | 9.66 | A+ |
| N. MacKinnonC | 18:16 | 0-3 | 4 | 0.55 | 72 | 0/0 | 2.58 | 8.48 | A+ |
| N. RoyC | 12:53 | 1-1 | 3 | 0.27 | 61 | 0/1 | 1.79 | 8.36 | A+ |
| J. MansonD | 16:36 | 1-1 | 2 | 0.04 | 71 | 0/0 | 1.97 | 7.13 | A |
| P. KellyC | 15:31 | 0-2 | 1 | 0.04 | 62 | 0/0 | 1.61 | 6.23 | A |
| A. LehkonenL | 19:26 | 1-1 | 2 | 0.29 | 57 | 0/0 | 1.72 | 5.32 | A |
| C. MakarD | 20:04 | 1-0 | 3 | 0.16 | 88 | 0/0 | 1.46 | 4.37 | A |
| G. LandeskogL | 14:35 | 0-1 | 0 | 0.00 | 63 | 0/0 | 0.91 | 3.72 | A |
| T. HughesR | 19:56 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.30 | 69 | 2/0 | 0.92 | 2.77 | B |
| J. SchwartzL | 14:14 | 0-0 | 4 | 0.27 | 74 | 0/0 | 0.82 | 3.44 | B |
| F. SvechkovC | 15:05 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.41 | 76 | 0/0 | 0.70 | 2.80 | B |
| N. KadriC | 18:27 | 0-0 | 4 | 0.36 | 60 | 0/0 | 0.70 | 2.27 | B |
| S. MalinskiD | 15:37 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.19 | 64 | 1/0 | 0.61 | 2.35 | B |
| D. ToewsD | 18:55 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.01 | 71 | 0/0 | 0.27 | 0.85 | C |
| B. NelsonC | 16:11 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.09 | 52 | 0/0 | 0.21 | 0.79 | C |
| B. BurnsD | 13:10 | 0-0 | 2 | 0.04 | 61 | 0/1 | 0.16 | 0.74 | C |
| B. KulakD | 16:48 | 0-0 | 0 | 0.00 | 40 | 0/0 | -0.02 | -0.07 | D |
| N. JuulsenD | 10:55 | 0-0 | 1 | 0.03 | 36 | 0/0 | -0.04 | -0.20 | D |
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: R. Johnston, A. Toropchenko, J. Barron. Referees Thomas John Luxmore and Stephen Hiff; linesmen Joe Mahon and Jonny Murray.
STL Created 2.05 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 0 high-danger shots (0.00 xG) and 25 rush shots (1.60 xG).
COL Created 3.56 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.92 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.52 xG).
STL Allowed 3.56 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.92 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.52 xG).
COL Allowed 2.05 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 0 high-danger shots (0.00 xG) and 25 rush shots (1.60 xG).
STL Rush shots 25–28, rush xG 1.60–2.52 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
COL Rush shots 28–25, rush xG 2.52–1.60 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
STL 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.17 PP xG.
COL 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.62 PP xG.
STL -2.44 goals saved above expected on 36 shots against.
COL +1.05 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.
STL Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.
COL Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.
Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral
STL Finishing -1.05 goals vs xG plus -2.44 GSAx of save luck = -3.49 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
COL Finishing +2.44 goals vs xG plus +1.05 GSAx of save luck = +3.49 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
Gave up 28 rush shots worth 2.52 xG (5 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
5 goals on 28 rush shots worth 2.52 xG.
J. Binnington allowed 6 on 36 shots (0.833) — 2.44 goals worse than expected.
Reassess the crease rotation before the next start.
Scored 6 on 3.56 xG — +2.44 above expected. Shooting luck like that regresses.
Gave up 25 rush shots worth 1.60 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
Single-game PDO of 0.927 — the bounces went against them tonight.
Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, COL 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.
Colorado is the model's lean over St. Louis tonight. The projection sits around 3.4-2.8, with the Avalanche winning 60% of the time. Two factors drive that edge: Colorado's command of the even-strength game, and the clock working against J. Hofer.
The Avalanche own the underlying play at even strength, claiming 55.5% of expected goals — the metric for quality chances. St. Louis manages 46.2%. That margin is the game — not transformative, but the kind of edge that compounds in tight third periods.
Rest amplifies it. Colorado comes in on two days off; St. Louis on none. That advantage typically materializes late, and it magnifies when the opposing goalie is running on back-to-back legs.
J. Hofer starts for St. Louis in his second straight night, which is where the fatigue signal burns brightest. If the Blues turn to a backup, Colorado's edge widens. If Hofer plays, watch his positioning in close — goalies on back-to-backs often leak in the slot.
M. Blackwood appeared once for Colorado, allowing 1.4 more goals than the chances dictated while stopping 87.1% of shots. J. Hofer appeared once, allowing 3.0 fewer goals than expected with perfect stops. Both are single-game auditions; both will regress toward the mean.
Both teams are running hot by luck. Colorado's 1.140 PDO and St. Louis's 1.133 mean both are overperforming their underlying metrics. That luck typically corrects soonest for the team on the road or fatigued, so regression likely strikes St. Louis tonight.
Colorado's slot conversion is the sharpest edge in the matchup — eight goals on 47 shots from the prime area, a 17% rate. The Blues can target denial there; whether they manage that while navigating back-to-back exhaustion is the second-order question.
The model says Colorado by one. Rest and goaltending say the margin could be wider.
COL by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score STL 2.8–3.4 COL; 16% chance it's tied after 60.
COL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.133 vs 1.140) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.
J. Hofer projects to start on no rest, the second night of a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or tired legs.
Test the goalie early with traffic and second-chance pressure.
The Avalanche own the underlying play — 55.5% 5v5 xG vs 46.2%.
The Avalanche project at 60% win probability.
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.140 — running hot, expect some regression.
Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.
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.