Backcheck
Recap · STL at OTT

J. Hofer stands tall as the Blues edge the Senators

The Blues won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

By the ModelJul 11, 7:13 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
STL
St. Louis Blues
2
Home
OTT
Ottawa Senators
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.02Expected goals4.32
52% share for the better side
20Shot attempts (SOG)42
6High-danger chances6
41Corsi (all attempts)80
Score-adjusted: 31% / 69%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Senators controlled this game on the scoreboard's least reliable metric — shot attempts went 68% their way, 42–20 — then lost 2-1 anyway. The underlying expected goals split showed Ottawa's dominance was real but narrow (4.32–4.02 in their favor), and the high-danger chances ran even at 6–6. Where St. Louis stole the game: goaltending and shot quality.

J. Hofer was the difference. He stopped 41 of 42 shots for a 0.976 save percentage, 3.32 goals above expected. That's not a close performance — it's the kind of night that decides close games. L. Ullmark, meanwhile, posted a 0.900 SV%, 2.02 goals above expected. Both goalies outplayed their xG models, but Hofer's margin was decisive.

The Blues understood their disadvantage and played accordingly. They took 20 shots at 0.098 expected goals per shot — translating volume into danger. Ottawa took 42 at 0.054 xG per shot, which means the Senators were generating quantity without quality. The Senators crashed the net effectively (4 rebound chances), but converted none, and finished 3.32 goals below their xG. The Blues underperformed too (2.02 below), but started from a position of efficiency.

Fabian Zetterlund's wrist shot from the slot at 15:39 of the third period stood as the turning point, a clean look that found the back of the net when the Senators had already burned their chance-creation capital.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL2 / 6 · 2.80 xG
OTT1 / 6 · 1.49 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL0 / 6 · 0.78 xG
OTT0 / 15 · 1.77 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL0 / 29 · 0.45 xG
OTT0 / 59 · 1.06 xG

OTT went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.77 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
2 G · 4.02 xG · -2.0
OTT
1 G · 4.32 xG · -3.3
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. HoferSTL
+3.3
L. UllmarkOTT
+2.0

STL finished -2.0 against expected, OTT -3.3 — J. Hofer (STL) saved 3.3 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST0/18
SNAP0/8
TIP IN1/2
SLAP0/0
BACKHAND0/2
BAT1/1
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/10
OTT
WRIST1/37
SNAP0/8
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/1
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/23
STL
OTT
Off the rush
1 G on 16 · 1.10 xG
1 G on 34 · 2.71 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2 · 0.40 xG
0 G on 4 · 0.60 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-18, OTT 1-for-37.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Neighbours
#63 · L · STL
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 15:15 TOI · +2
P. Suter
#22 · C · STL
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:47 TOI · +1
P. Buchnevich
#89 · L · STL
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 19:44 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • OTT had the shot volume but the chances weren't dangerous.
  • J. Hofer (STL) stopped 3.3 goals above expected.
  • STL had the higher quality looks — 0.098 xG/shot vs 0.054.
  • OTT created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • OTT underperformed xG by 3.3 — wasted quality chances.
  • STL underperformed xG by 2.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • J. Hofer (STL) saved 3.3 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • L. Ullmark (OTT) saved 2.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · STL at OTT · 7:00 PM ET

The Senators are the model's lean over the Blues on the underlying numbers

By the ModelJul 11, 7:11 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

57%
OTT
Model favorite
43%
57%
STL50OTT

OTT by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.22.7 OTT; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

STL← edge
edge →OTT
49.0%5v5 xG%56.0%
48.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.34xGF / 602.66
2.40xGA / 602.12
2.00Goals for / gm2.18
2.12Goals against / gm1.99
1.000PDO — luck, not skill0.993

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.000 vs 0.993) says STL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 57% win probability for Ottawa over a 2.2–2.7 range, backed by a clear edge in territorial control. St. Louis enters with a -10 goal differential over their last ten, which narrows the Blues' margin for error.

Ottawa owns the underlying play decisively. The Senators generate 56.0% expected goals against 49.0% for the Blues at 5v5, and control Corsi at 53.0% to 48.0%—a territorial tilt favoring the Senators across the board.

Keep watch on both goaltenders. L. Meriläinen and J. Binnington are both on back-to-backs, which could mean backup appearances or tired starters.

With both teams even on shooting luck—St. Louis at 1.000 PDO, Ottawa at 0.993—the underlying xG advantage stands as the decisive edge.

STL

  • Jimmy Snuggerud — 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
  • Dylan Holloway — 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 HD goal, 10.8% shooting

OTT

  • Brady Tkachuk — 1.19 xG/60, 11G 20A, 2 HD goals, 7.5% shooting
  • Dylan Cozens — 1.00 xG/60, 13G 15A, 1 HD goal, 9.5% shooting
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters