ST. LOUIS — Jim Montgomery has been talking a lot lately about analytics. It’s understandable.
The St. Louis Blues had lost seven straight games before Monday’s 3-2 win over the Edmonton Oilers, and the underlying numbers were suggesting they deserved better.
That’s not to say they were playing well, but if they stuck with the process, Montgomery said, the results might follow.
“I think the last two games have been — outside of some game-management issues against Vancouver — they’ve been really good games,” Montgomery said before Monday’s game. “There’s different analytics you can look at, and things will go our way, and when they do — the way we’re playing — they tell a true story. That doesn’t match up: the eye and the standings.”
Even with the win, the Blues are 31st in the NHL standings with just 10 points, ahead of only the Calgary Flames.
But Monday’s game did show the reason the analytics weren’t as harsh as the results.
The Blues have been creating scoring chances but not converting. They’ve been keeping the puck out of their zone but allowing quick goals when opponents do gain the zone.
In the second period, trailing the Oilers 1-0, the Blues had three chances to tie the score. But Pius Suter, Brayden Schenn and Philip Broberg missed on good chances.
Then, just 20 seconds after Broberg’s, Edmonton went on a four-on-two rush and took a 2-0 lead.
This time, though, the Blues stayed confident — and more importantly, they stuck to the process.
“Yeah, we’re down 2-0, and yeah, they made some high-end plays, but we had three odd-man rushes before they scored the goal to make it 2-0,” Montgomery said. “So that gave us a lot of positive talk on the bench.”
And with goals from Dalibor Dvorsky and Robert Thomas late in the second and one from Pius Suter late in the third, the Blues fought back for a 3-2 victory.
“It’s really important,” Montgomery said. “Even during the slide, it may be hard to believe, but the belief in the room is that we’re a good hockey team. I talked about it earlier, but there’s a lot of analytics, and where (the Blues’ analytic numbers were), those teams haven’t missed the playoffs in the last 10 years.
“So that’s why we felt good. Now, that’s just one win. We’ve got to keep building. (But) I think we can be a really good hockey team if we keep building it the right way.”
For those fans who watched the first month of the Blues’ season and are wondering how a team that was 3-7-2 before playing Edmonton was a playoff-caliber club, let’s take a look.
To provide analytics context as to whether the Blues are playing better than the results indicate, I brought in The Athletic’s Shayna Goldman.
We’ll touch on a few specific areas of the team’s game — and individuals — to see whether we can get to the root of the issues and whether they’re improving.
(Note: All league rankings are through Monday)
Jeremy Rutherford: As Montgomery said, the Blues’ expected goals for is much better than a lot of people would believe. What is that number, where does the team rank in the NHL in that category, and what does it mean?
Shayna Goldman: Expected goals, in short, are a proxy for shot quality. Expected goal models assign a value to a shot based on the likelihood of that shot becoming a goal. Factors include shot type, distance, angle, game state and whether it was a rush, rebound or second-chance opportunity (read more on that here). Natural Stat Trick has the Blues sixth in the league in xG for at five-on-five (venue adjusted), with 2.81 per 60 minutes. What that means is that the Blues are creating quality chances, but there is some disconnect between that and the scoresheet.
Rutherford: OK, so the Blues are getting chances but not scoring. The best way to evaluate a team’s offensive production, because they’ve played a different number of games this season, is goals per 60 minutes. Where do the Blues rank in the league in goals per 60, and if that number is low, what does that say about the discrepancy in the chances the team is creating and not converting? Is it as simple as they’re lacking finish?
Goldman: The Blues have only scored at a rate of 2.40 per 60 at five-on-five (venue adjusted), which ranks 19th in the league. It adds up to St. Louis scoring 4.41 goals below expected, which is the eighth worst in the league. Though it’s ideal to see the team have substance, it’s a results-driven league.
Usually, the first thing to check is a team’s shooting percentage, and the Blues’ really isn’t egregiously low. What could be holding the Blues back is the team’s finishing talent, since this isn’t a group of lethal shooters. Thomas’ four-game absence could be part of that. As much as public xG models try to account for pre-shot movement, passing data isn’t included, which changes the danger of a scoring chance. We know Thomas is one of the most dynamic playmakers in the league, so the Blues’ shots might not have been as dangerous while he was sidelined.
Rutherford: So who is carrying the load offensively, or at least carrying their weight, and who needs to do more?
Goldman: Offseason signing Pius Suter has been carrying his weight, and so was Jake Neighbours before his injury. The Blues are generating quality offense when Jimmy Snuggerud and Schenn are on the ice at five-on-five, too. The scoresheet just doesn’t match their efforts. Once pucks start going in the net more consistently — and the signs are there that it will happen — it’ll give the team a deep, balanced attack.
But it’s still fair to want more at the top of the lineup, and that falls on the shoulders of wingers such as Dylan Holloway and Pavel Buchnevich. To Holloway’s credit, the Blues have scored 10 five-on-five goals in his minutes, so the process is clicking when he is on the ice. He just hasn’t been a primary contributor to it.
Rutherford: Overall team defense and goaltending have obviously been the main culprits this season. What is the Blues’ expected goals against, where do they rank in terms of what they’re giving up per 60, and what does that tell us?
Goldman: The Blues are giving up 2.39 xG against per 60 at five-on-five (venue adjusted), which is 12th in the league — not perfect, but not a massive red flag.
The problem is the team allows the highest rate of actual goals against at five-on-five (venue adjusted), at 3.53, and that primarily falls on the shoulders of the goalies. Jordan Binnington and Joel Hofer have been far below expectations this season and have some of the worst numbers in the league.
Rutherford: Colton Parayko and Cam Fowler were a great pair for the Blues last season but haven’t had the same level of success this season and were split up recently. How much of the defensive issues have been the play of the top four, including Broberg and Justin Faulk, and how much is on the fact veteran Ryan Suter is gone and they’re using youngsters Tyler Tucker, Logan Mailloux and Matthew Kessel in the third pair?
Goldman: Parayko and Fowler weren’t that awful together this year, but they were outscored 10-2 at five-on-five before the coaches split them up. As much as that falls on goaltending — and a lot of it does when the team has an .861 save percentage in those minutes together — there can be nuances the models don’t capture, such as each defender’s exact positioning at the time of a shot.
Broberg and Parayko, though, look good together so far. They have a 63.6 percent xG rate and are up 6-4 in scoring in their five-on-five minutes. The Blues learned Broberg can step up and match up minutes last season, and now he’s shouldering that role again in a different capacity. The Blues are actually allowing more scoring chances with Fowler-Faulk paired up than Broberg-Faulk, but the goaltending has been slightly better.
The third pair is a weaker link. It’s less about Ryan Suter, who was rightfully deployed in more sheltered minutes down the stretch last season, and more about with whom the team replaced him. I’m not sure Mailloux is ready for this level just yet. His relative impacts are rough, and his minus-2.6 Defensive Rating is second to last in the league at the position. Tucker-Kessel is a bit more neutral and less risky, which this team needs right now, considering the goalie struggles.
Rutherford: Recently, Montgomery pointed out the Blues were one of the best teams in the NHL in terms of keeping the puck out of their defensive zone, but in that limited zone time, they’re allowing glorious scoring chances. Obviously, the lack of saves from Binnington and Hofer has hurt, but, analytically, are we seeing a defense that’s letting down the goalies, the goalies letting down the team or a combination of the two?
Goldman: The defense hasn’t been perfect, and lapses have exposed a shaky crease. It’s worth mentioning that Hofer has actually had a more challenging workload than his partner at five-on-five. The team has given up more quality chances when Hofer is in net (3.08 xG against per 60) compared with Binnington (2.05 per 60).
When accounting for minutes played, Hofer is also facing a slightly higher rate of rushes and rebounds against. So that part does fall on the defense in front. Still, even with all of that in mind, Hofer isn’t responding well to his workload. Binnington has been even worse, which is even more concerning since he is expected to be the guy.
Rutherford: Any other numbers that stick out to you in terms of the Blues’ early-season woes?
Goldman: I think this graphic from Mike Kelly of Sportlogiq captures everything really well.
Results vs Process…
(NHL Ranks) pic.twitter.com/ISfSn5A2eA
— Mike Kelly (@MikeKellyNHL) November 3, 2025
The Blues, for the most part, are doing what they need to do below the surface. So the process is working to an extent. That’s a good indicator things will turn around, especially with Thomas back in the fold. Is that going to be enough to outpace the goaltending? That’s one of the most pressing questions. For now, these are all just early-season trends and red flags. The Blues have to stop them from turning into long-term problems.
It doesn’t really matter whether the Blues finally pulled out of their skid because their game was trending in the right direction or because the analytics indicated it was just a matter of time.
“For us players, we obviously look at analytics, but it’s more of a feel thing,” Thomas said. “I haven’t played in the last few games, but just being around the room the last couple of days, guys feel that we should be doing better than we are. That’s the positive thing: We feel like we’re building our team game. If you continue to build your game, the results will come eventually.”
And they did Monday.
“To be honest, I don’t know enough about analytics, but from what coaches are seeing, from what they say, yes,” Schenn said. “But it’s sports, and numbers are numbers. That’s why I don’t feel hockey is totally an analytical sport. It’s based on big moments, momentum swings, guys stepping up at key times. Usually when that happens, you’re getting wins and your analytics will take over itself.”