Backcheck
Recap · CBJ at NSH

Predators hold off the Blue Jackets

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

By the ModelJun 16, 2:15 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CBJ
Columbus Blue Jackets
1
Home
NSH
Nashville Predators
2
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.32Expected goals3.79
53% share for the better side
39Shot attempts (SOG)32
3High-danger chances5
72Corsi (all attempts)60
Score-adjusted: 56% / 44%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Nashville won 2-1 while being outshot 39-32, a scoreline that seemed improbable until the expected goals numbers arrived: NSH held a 53-47 edge (3.79–3.32), meaning they simply took better shots. The disparity in shot quality was deliberate—NSH managed 0.063 expected goals per shot versus CBJ's 0.046, the mark of a team that valued efficiency over volume.

What made this formula work was goaltending. J. Saros stopped 38 of 39 shots (0.974 SV%), +2.32 versus expected—a surplus that swallowed NSH's own underperformance. CBJ's J. Greaves matched that standard, finishing 30 of 32 (0.938 SV%), +1.79 above model. Both teams left points on the table. NSH, despite that xG edge, should have potted 3.79 goals and settled for 2. CBJ, expected to produce 3.32, managed 1. The gap explained the scoreline: when both offenses misfire, the team with the advantage takes it anyway.

High-danger chances reinforced the winner. NSH generated five; CBJ three. The turn came early—Ryan O'Reilly's backhander from the doorstep in the third period (02:41)—a goal that ended debate, though statistically it shouldn't have been necessary.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CBJ0 / 3 · 0.69 xG
NSH1 / 5 · 1.38 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CBJ1 / 20 · 2.00 xG
NSH0 / 18 · 1.88 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CBJ0 / 49 · 0.63 xG
NSH1 / 37 · 0.53 xG

NSH went 0-for-18 from medium danger on 1.88 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CBJ
1 G · 3.32 xG · -2.3
NSH
2 G · 3.79 xG · -1.8
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. GreavesCBJ
+1.8
J. SarosNSH
+2.3

CBJ finished -2.3 against expected, NSH -1.8 — J. Saros (NSH) saved 2.3 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
CBJ
WRIST0/27
SNAP0/11
SLAP0/6
DEFLECTED0/1
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/21
NSH
WRIST0/20
SNAP0/5
SLAP1/9
DEFLECTED0/5
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/15
CBJ
NSH
Off the rush
1 G on 32 · 2.45 xG
2 G on 30 · 3.10 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3 · 0.36 xG
0 G on 2 · 0.21 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 0-for-27, NSH 0-for-20. NSH scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
R. Josi
#59 · D ·
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:51 TOI · -1
D. Severson
#78 · D ·
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:57 TOI · +1
F. Forsberg
#9 · L ·
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:27 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • CBJ generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • J. Greaves (CBJ) stopped 1.8 goals above expected.
  • NSH generated far more dangerous chances — 0.063 xG/shot vs 0.046. Quality over quantity.
  • NSH was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 30 rush chances.
  • CBJ created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • NSH underperformed xG by 1.8 — wasted quality chances.
  • CBJ underperformed xG by 2.3 — wasted quality chances.
  • J. Greaves (CBJ) saved 1.8 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • J. Saros (NSH) saved 2.3 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CBJ at NSH · 8:00 PM ET

Blue Jackets at Predators: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJun 16, 2:13 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
CBJ
Model favorite
51%
49%
CBJ50NSH

CBJ by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.62.6 NSH; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

CBJ← edge
edge →NSH
52.0%5v5 xG%49.0%
51.0%Corsi%50.0%
2.63xGF / 602.48
2.43xGA / 602.58
2.12Goals for / gm1.84
1.98Goals against / gm2.21
1.003PDO — luck, not skill0.992

CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 0.992) says CBJ has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

This is a pick'em. The model projects a 2.6–2.6 game with Nashville at 50% win probability—about as close to even odds as you'll find.

Columbus generates superior chances at 52.0% 5v5 expected goals, with a Corsi edge of 51.0% to 50.0%. That's the underlying advantage. But Nashville enters hotter, riding a 3-2-1 streak in their last ten. The reason the edge hasn't shown up in recent results: variance. Columbus's PDO of 1.003 means it's running slightly lucky—the regression clock is ticking. Nashville sits at 0.992, the opposite direction. A team with the better process has surrendered momentum because luck is about to normalize in the other direction.

Players to Watch

Columbus

  • Boone Jenner — 0.98 xG/60, 11G 21A, 2 HD goals, 9.6% shooting
  • Mathieu Olivier — 0.89 xG/60, 12G 9A, 1 HD goals, 13.3% shooting (week-to-week, upper-body injury)

Nashville

  • Zachary L'Heureux — 0.85 xG/60, 4G 0A, 1 HD goals, 16.0% shooting
  • Filip Forsberg — 0.80 xG/60, 23G 17A, 4 HD goals, 13.6% shooting

Jenner stands out because he's translating volume into results. L'Heureux's 16.0% shooting is unsustainable. Both teams sit at 0% on high-danger and rebound goals—structural discipline is holding. Nashville's weak defensive link is Jonathan Marchessault; Columbus's is Conor Garland.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters