Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
at

STL

St. Louis Blues

1-1-0

CHI

Chicago Blackhawks

0-3-0

Has last change

Tuesday, October 6

8:00 PM ET · United Center

The short version

Before the game

Round two in Chicago

The Blackhawks won the first meeting this season, 4-2 in Chicago. The Blues come in at 1-2-0, the Blackhawks at 1-3-0. St. Louis has controlled the play far better over recent games and Chicago has home ice. Chicago’s best way through is a penalty kill that holds up.

The Blackhawks won the first meeting this season, 4-2 in Chicago. The Blues come in at 1-2-0, the Blackhawks at 1-3-0. St. Louis has controlled the play far better over recent games and Chicago has home ice. Chicago can make it interesting if their penalty kill holds up.

The Blues and the Blackhawks sit at opposite ends for shot quality.

Who to watch

  • Leads the wayConnor McMichael leads the Blues with three points.
  • Leads the wayAnton Frondell leads the Blackhawks with four points.

  1. Good looks against hopeful ones

    On shot quality, St. Louis is one of the league’s best and Chicago is near the bottom of the league. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Blues’ shots are more dangerous on average than the Blackhawks’.

    Shot quality: St. Louis 4th, Chicago 24th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 and 3 games this season

  2. The Blues hit; the Blackhawks mostly don’t

    The Blues are around the middle of the league for physicality, at the bruising end; the Blackhawks are one of the league’s worst, at the finesse end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Blues hit more than the Blackhawks in the close stretches of the game.

    Physicality: St. Louis 16th, Chicago 31st

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 and 3 games this season

These calls are written by fixed rules from the numbers below, and saved as they stand at puck drop. After the game, each one will be checked against what happened.

Style fingerprints

How St. Louis and Chicago play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

St. Louis BluesChicago BlackhawksLeague averageLikely range

Each scale runs from the league’s lowest team on the left to its highest on the right. Numbers blend last season with the 2 and 3 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 2 games for St. Louis, 3 for Chicago. Expect these to swing a lot, which is why the likely ranges are so wide.

The biggest differences

Show all 18 traitsHide the full set

Offense

  • Shot volume
    SelectiveRelentless

    • St. Louis: 54.1 shot attempts per 6025th of 32

      St. Louis: 58.0 shot attempts per 6012th of 32

    • Chicago: 46.6 shot attempts per 6031st of 32

      Chicago: 42.6 shot attempts per 6030th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • St. Louis: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot4th of 32

      St. Louis: a 7.1% chance of scoring on the average shot9th of 32

    • Chicago: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot24th of 32

      Chicago: a 5.7% chance of scoring on the average shot25th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • St. Louis: 10.0% of chances come from rebounds29th of 32

      St. Louis: 20.9% of chances come from rebounds4th of 32

    • Chicago: 10.3% of chances come from rebounds12th of 32

      Chicago: 13.0% of chances come from rebounds12th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • St. Louis: 7.2% of chances come right after a turnover17th of 32

      St. Louis: 0.2% of chances come right after a turnover32nd of 32

    • Chicago: 7.6% of chances come right after a turnover8th of 32

      Chicago: 2.5% of chances come right after a turnover23rd of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • St. Louis: 36.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen7th of 32

      St. Louis: 37.6% of shot attempts come from defensemen6th of 32

    • Chicago: 34.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen18th of 32

      Chicago: 31.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen22nd of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • St. Louis: 28.8% of shots come from within 20 feet28th of 32

      St. Louis: 24.5% of shots come from within 20 feet28th of 32

    • Chicago: 26.5% of shots come from within 20 feet32nd of 32

      Chicago: 24.1% of shots come from within 20 feet29th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • St. Louis: 57.4 shot attempts allowed per 6017th of 32

      St. Louis: 64.0 shot attempts allowed per 6024th of 32

    • Chicago: 61.9 shot attempts allowed per 6029th of 32

      Chicago: 68.3 shot attempts allowed per 6031st of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • St. Louis: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot against9th of 32

      St. Louis: a 6.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against12th of 32

    • Chicago: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against20th of 32

      Chicago: a 6.8% chance of scoring on the average shot against24th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • St. Louis: 0.40 defensive breakdowns per 6015th of 32

      St. Louis: 1.37 defensive breakdowns per 6031st of 32

    • Chicago: 0.38 defensive breakdowns per 607th of 32

      Chicago: 0.79 defensive breakdowns per 6025th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • St. Louis: +0.05 goals saved above expected per 6024th of 32

      St. Louis: +0.18 goals saved above expected per 6017th of 32

    • Chicago: +0.09 goals saved above expected per 6020th of 32

      Chicago: −0.86 goals saved above expected per 6025th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • St. Louis: 79.0 shots per 60, both teams combined27th of 32

      St. Louis: 82.2 shots per 60, both teams combined14th of 32

    • Chicago: 83.0 shots per 60, both teams combined13th of 32

      Chicago: 87.5 shots per 60, both teams combined9th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • St. Louis: forecheck score 100 (100 is league average)17th of 32St. Louis: 22.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6015th of 32

      St. Louis: forecheck score 94 (100 is league average)18th of 32St. Louis: 23.3 forecheck plays recorded per 6019th of 32

    • Chicago: forecheck score 80 (100 is league average)31st of 32Chicago: 17.9 forecheck plays recorded per 6032nd of 32

      Chicago: forecheck score 80 (100 is league average)24th of 32Chicago: 19.6 forecheck plays recorded per 6025th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • St. Louis: hit score 100 (100 is league average)16th of 32St. Louis: 26.6 hits recorded per 6017th of 32

      St. Louis: hit score 93 (100 is league average)21st of 32St. Louis: 28.2 hits recorded per 6022nd of 32

    • Chicago: hit score 76 (100 is league average)31st of 32Chicago: 19.8 hits recorded per 6031st of 32

      Chicago: hit score 70 (100 is league average)31st of 32Chicago: 20.7 hits recorded per 6030th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • St. Louis: 43.3% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six8th of 32

      St. Louis: 43.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six12th of 32

    • Chicago: 41.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six21st of 32

      Chicago: 42.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six17th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • St. Louis: 6.1 expected goals per 60 on the power play31st of 32

      St. Louis: 3.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play30th of 32

    • Chicago: 5.9 expected goals per 60 on the power play32nd of 32

      Chicago: 2.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play32nd of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • St. Louis: 7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded18th of 32

      St. Louis: 6.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded16th of 32

    • Chicago: 7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded15th of 32

      Chicago: 6.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded17th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • St. Louis: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded28th of 32

      St. Louis: 0.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded22nd of 32

    • Chicago: 0.9 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded12th of 32

      Chicago: 3.3 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded1st of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • St. Louis: 0.05 more penalties taken than drawn per 6021st of 32

      St. Louis: 1.50 more penalties taken than drawn per 6029th of 32

    • Chicago: 0.09 more penalties taken than drawn per 6024th of 32

      Chicago: 0.67 more penalties taken than drawn per 6023rd of 32

Forecheck pressure and physicality are arena-adjusted scores; switch “Hits and takeaways” to Raw in the settings to see the numbers as recorded. How the arena adjustment works.

Lines and deployment

Chicago is at home, so their coach changes last and chooses who plays against whom.

How good, against the same line or pair on other teamsHow much, low to high (not good or bad)

Lines and pairs are numbered by 5-on-5 ice time together over each team’s last 10 games (2 and 3 so far), with each older game counting half as much as the one after it, so the latest combinations come first. With so few games, each group’s results are pulled toward the average for its line number.

St. Louis Blues

Chicago Blackhawks

Who Chicago is likely to send against whom

Chicago has not played at home yet this season, so there is no matching habit to show.

Special teams

Each power play set against the penalty killers it will face.

Show

St. Louis power play against Chicago penalty kill

  • St. Louis power play

    6.1 expected goals per 60 · 31st of 32

  • Chicago penalty kill

    7.5 expected goals allowed per 60 · 15th of 32

St. Louis power play

PP164% of the time

Creates 5.6 expected goals per 60

  • C. FowlerQuarterback
  • M. McTavish
  • D. Holloway
  • J. SnuggerudTrigger
  • R. ThomasDistributor

PP235% of the time

Creates 6.8 expected goals per 60

  • A. JiricekQuarterback
  • C. McMichael
  • P. BuchnevichTrigger
  • D. Dvorsky
  • J. NeighboursDistributor

 

Where St. Louis’s last 140 power-play shots came from. Bigger dots are more dangerous.

Chicago penalty kill

Starts the kill

Second wave

Units and penalty-kill roles use each team’s last 10 games; power-play role tags use this season and last, counting only games with the player’s current team; the map shows the last 140 power-play shots. Point at a power-play name to see his shots on the map.

Goaltending

Is each goalie stopping more than he should, and what is his team asking him to face?

Showagainst

J. Hofer45 starts · 1276 shots, this season and last

+20.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.980 697 shots
Medium-danger save %
.875 423 shots
High-danger save %
.699 156 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.5
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.36
Quality starts
62%

Helping, or hung out to dry?

System and goalie both goodGoalie bailing them outGoalie giving back what the system earnsTrouble everywhereTeam allows fewer chances ← → more chancesJ. HoferJ. BinningtonS. KnightA. Soderblom

S. Knight57 starts · 1647 shots, this season and last

+14.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.980 814 shots
Medium-danger save %
.856 596 shots
High-danger save %
.743 237 shots
Shots faced per 60
29
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.39
Quality starts
49%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Hofer: +20.9 goals saved above expected in 45 starts
    • S. Knight: +14.9 goals saved above expected in 57 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Hofer: 28.5 shots faced per 60
    • S. Knight: 29 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Hofer: the average shot he faces has a 6.8% chance of going in
    • S. Knight: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Hofer: 0.36 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • S. Knight: 0.39 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Hofer: a typical wait of 70 seconds between shots
    • S. Knight: a typical wait of 70 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Hofer: a quality start 62% of the time
    • S. Knight: a quality start 49% of the time

J. Hofer, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

S. Knight, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Hofer1 start · 25 shots, this season

+2.8 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
1.000 14 shots
Medium-danger save %
1.000 11 shots
High-danger save %
– 0 shots
Shots faced per 60
25
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
100%

Helping, or hung out to dry?

System and goalie both goodGoalie bailing them outGoalie giving back what the system earnsTrouble everywhereTeam allows fewer chances ← → more chancesJ. HoferJ. BinningtonS. KnightA. Soderblom

S. Knight2 starts · 64 shots, this season

−0.6 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
1.000 26 shots
Medium-danger save %
.839 31 shots
High-danger save %
.571 7 shots
Shots faced per 60
32.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
0%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Hofer: +2.8 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
    • S. Knight: −0.6 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Hofer: 25 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • S. Knight: 32.3 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Hofer: the average shot he faces has a 6.5% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
    • S. Knight: the average shot he faces has a 7.4% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Hofer: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • S. Knight: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Hofer: a typical wait of 93 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
    • S. Knight: a typical wait of 65 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Hofer: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)
    • S. Knight: a quality start 0% of the time

J. Hofer, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

S. Knight, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

The menus list every goalie on each team, busiest this season first; the site does not yet know who will start. Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie whose team gives up many cross-ice passes looks worse here than he really is.

Where the goals come from

How each team’s goals are scored, or allowed, against the league average.

Show goals
St. LouisChicagoLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play60.9%60%
  • Power play15.7%18.1%
  • Rebound4.7%7.9%
  • Empty net6.4%4.2%
  • Off a turnover6%4.7%
  • Goalie pulled2.6%0.5%
  • Shorthanded2.1%2.3%
  • Off a faceoff win1.7%2.3%

235 St. Louis goals and 215 Chicago goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play40%100%
  • Power play0%0%
  • Rebound20%0%
  • Empty net40%0%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

5 St. Louis goals and 5 Chicago goals scored this season. Each row has its own scale.

These mixes are mostly luck: over three seasons, teams’ goals came from much the same places, and most of the differences here didn’t last. Each team page shows how much luck alone can move each row.

Data notes

Team pages: St. Louis Blues · Chicago Blackhawks