Chicago Blackhawks: 10-Game Report Card

he Chicago Blackhawks reached the 20-game mark with another steady 5-3-2 stretch, matching their record from the opening 10 games and pushing their season total to 10-6-4. What truly stands out in this segment is the emergence of Connor Bedard. After a strong start, Bedard exploded in Games 11–20 with 18 points in 10 games, establishing himself as one of the hottest players in the league. His offensive surge helped keep the Blackhawks stable through a tougher, faster second block of the schedule.

Despite the team giving up more shots and spending more time in their zone, Bedard’s production, the improved power play, and solid goaltending allowed Chicago to maintain the same winning pace. The Hawks are showing signs of growth, even if the underlying numbers reveal some areas that slipped between the first and second segments. Still, with Bedard leading the way and the team continuing to battle every night, the Blackhawks remain competitive and ahead of many preseason expectations.

Note: This report card does not include Game #21 vs. Buffalo. All evaluations are based strictly on Games 11–20.

Team Stats

Category	Season 2025-26	Game 1–10	Game 11–20	NHL Rank
Record	10-6-4	5-3-2	5-3-2	18th
GF (Goals For)	66	33	33	6th
GF/GP	3.30	3.30	3.30	6th
GA (Goals Against)	52	25	27	3rd
GA/GP	2.60	2.50	2.55	3rd
GD (Goal Differential)	14	8	6	3rd
PP (Power Play %)	24.1%	18.2%	32.0%	10th
PK (Penalty Kill %)	83.56%	86.4%	79.4%	8th
FOW (Faceoff %)	46.3%	47.6%	45.2%	29th
S/GP (Shots per Game)	25.0	24.5	25.5	29th
SA/GP (Shots Against per Game)	31.0	29.4	32.6	29th
Shots %	13.1	11.2	12.9	2nd
NETPEN (Net Penalties)	-14	-12	-15	32nd
MINOR (Minor Penalties)	75	48	27	10th
GF 5v5	46	24	22	10th
GA 5v5	34	17	17	5th
CF% (Corsi For %)	45.37%	46.7%	44.1%	26th
xGF% (Expected Goals For %)	44.22%	45.3%	43.4%	27th
HDCF% (High-Danger Scoring Chances For %)	42.14%	43.3%	41.5%	27th
HDCF-HDCA (Differential)	173-218	95-137	78-81	——

What the Numbers Tell Us

The Blackhawks showed real consistency through their first 20 games, matching their 5-3-2 record from Games 1–10 with another 5-3-2 stretch in Games 11–20. Offensively, nothing changed — Chicago scored 33 goals in each segment and stayed at 3.30 goals per game, proving that their attack didn’t slow down even as injuries and line adjustments piled up.

Defensively, the numbers slipped slightly. The Hawks went from allowing 25 goals to 27, and their goals-against average rose from 2.50 to 2.55. It’s not a major drop, but it does show they spent more time defending and gave up more pressure than they did in the opening ten games.

Special teams were a tale of two trends. The power play exploded from 18.2% to a dominant 32.0%, becoming one of the biggest strengths of the team. Meanwhile, the penalty kill dipped from 86.4% to 79.4%, showing that opponents generated more chances and the Hawks took penalties at the wrong times.

Possession numbers clearly went the wrong way. Chicago’s Corsi percentage fell from 46.7% to 44.1%, their expected-goals share dropped from 45.3% to 43.4%, and high-danger chances slid from 43.3% to 41.5%. Combined with shots-against rising from 29.4 per game to 32.6, it confirms that the Hawks were stuck defending more often in Games 11–20.

Despite spending more time in their zone, Chicago’s finishing ability improved. Their shooting percentage jumped from 11.2% to 12.9%, which helped them maintain the same goal production even though the underlying numbers weren’t as strong.

Through it all, goaltending remained the backbone of the team. Spencer Knight and Arvid Soderblom held the fort during a stretch where the Hawks gave up more shots and more dangerous looks, and that stability in net is one of the biggest reasons Chicago maintained another 5-3-2 record.

Overall, the second 10-game block shows a team that is still trending upward in certain areas — especially their power play and scoring efficiency — but also battling some growing pains in puck possession, discipline, and defensive-zone pressure. The Hawks are progressing, but the next step will depend on cutting down shots against and controlling more of the play.

Blackhawks Stats (Situational)

Situation	Overall	Home	Away
Record	10-6-4	5-3-2	5-3-2
When Scoring First	10-3-2	5-2-2	5-1-0
When Opponent Scores First	0-3-2	0-1-0	0-2-2
When Outshooting Opponent	3-2-1	2-2-1	1-1-0
When Outshot by Opponent	7-4-3	3-2-1	4-2-2
1-Goal Games	3-3-4	2-2-2	1-1-2
After 1st Period – Lead	4-1-2	2-1-2	2-0-0
After 1st Period – Trail	0-2-0	0-0-0	0-2-0
After 1st Period – Tie	6-3-2	3-2-0	3-1-2
After 2nd Period – Lead	6-1-0	3-1-0	3-0-0
After 2nd Period – Trail	1-3-1	1-1-0	0-2-1
After 2nd Period – Tie	3-2-3	1-1-2	2-1-1

Scoring by Period

Location	1st	2nd	3rd	OT	Total
Overall – Team	17	15	33	1	66
Overall – Opponent	9	21	18	3	51
Home – Team	9	7	13	1	30
Home – Opponent	1	12	10	1	24
Away – Team	8	8	20	0	36
Away – Opponent	8	9	8	2	27

Shots Per Period

Location	1st	2nd	3rd	OT	Total
Overall – Team	170	158	164	10	502
Overall – Opponent	205	188	214	15	622
Home – Team	90	69	82	6	247
Home – Opponent	92	83	100	10	285
Away – Team	80	89	82	43	255
Away – Opponent	113	105	114	52	337

The numbers paint a clear picture of a young team that fights hard, starts well, and keeps games close, but still struggles to control long stretches of play — especially in the second period.

Chicago is excellent when they score first. A 10-3-2 record after getting the opening goal shows confidence, execution, and the ability to protect early momentum. But when they allow the first goal, everything changes. The Hawks are winless at 0-3-2, proving that chasing the game is still a major weakness. This is a developing team that needs structure to succeed, and the moment they fall behind, their entire style becomes harder to maintain.

The split between periods is even more telling. Chicago is strong in the first and very good in the third, but the second period is their problem zone. Opponents outscore them heavily in the middle frame, and the shot totals confirm it — teams push the Hawks back, outshoot them, and take control of momentum during those 20 minutes. Chicago dresses a young roster, and the second period has always been the toughest for teams that rely on structure and energy.

Another trend stands out: Chicago does not win the shot battle very often, yet they keep coming out with points. When outshooting opponents, they’re a respectable 3-2-1. But when outshot, they’re actually better at 7-4-3. This tells us two things — the Hawks are dangerous on the rush, and their goaltending (especially Spencer Knight) is holding the team above water on nights where they don’t have the puck.

At home, the Hawks are competitive but still give up more shots and more goals against. On the road, they score more in the third period, showing poise and maturity late in games, but they also absorb far more pressure. In total scoring by period, the Hawks’ biggest strength is clear: they finish well. They have 33 third-period goals, their best offensive frame, which shows their conditioning, resilience, and ability to stay in games even when the underlying numbers aren’t perfect.

Defensively, the story is similar: solid in the first, vulnerable in the second, and much more controlled in the third. Opponents have 214 third-period goals, compared to Chicago’s 164, but the Hawks’ ability to generate offense late allows them to stay competitive every night.

Overall, these numbers describe a team that competes, battles, and refuses to collapse. They start games well, survive the second period, and come back strong in the third. They’re at their best when they control the opening goal, lean on their goaltending, and use their speed on the rush. But to move forward, they need to clean up their second-period play and reduce the long stretches where they get hemmed in defensively.

Players Stats

Connor Bedard

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Connor Bedard	C	20	21:20	13	16	29	8	49.7	66.7
Game 1–10		10		5	6	11	6	49.6	75.0
Game 11–20		10		8	10	18	2	49.6	75.0

Frank Nazar

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Frank Nazar	C	18	19:26	5	9	14	5	49.6	75.0
Game 1–10		10		5	6	11	6	49.6	75.0
Game 11–20		8		0	3	3	-1	49.6	75.0

Ryan Donato

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Ryan Donato	RW	20	15:49	7	5	12	1	58.4	61.1
Game 1–10		10		6	2	8	2	58.4	61.1
Game 11–20		10		1	3	4	-1	58.4	61.1

Teuvo Teravainen

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Teuvo Teravainen	RW	20	18:39	5	10	15	8	48.8	68.8
Game 1–10		10		1	7	8	6	48.8	68.8
Game 11–20		10		4	3	7	2	48.8	68.8

Andrei Burakovsky

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Andrei Burakovsky	LW	18	16:37	7	8	15	5	37.7	55.6
Game 1–10		9		2	4	6	-1	37.7	55.6
Game 11–20		9		5	4	9	6	37.7	55.6

Tyler Bertuzzi

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Tyler Bertuzzi	LW	16	16:39	10	7	17	1	57.0	62.5
Game 1–10		9		2	4	6	0	57.0	62.5
Game 11–20		7		8	3	11	1	57.0	62.5

Ilya Mikheyev

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Ilya Mikheyev	RW	18	17:47	4	3	7	5	38.0	60.0
Game 1–10		9		3	2	5	5	38.0	60.0
Game 11–20		9		1	1	2	0	38.0	60.0

Louis Crevier

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Louis Crevier	D	19	12:15	2	8	10	9	41.9	66.7
Game 1–10		9		2	2	4	4	41.9	66.7
Game 11–20		10		0	6	6	4	41.9	66.7

Nick Foligno

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Nick Foligno	RW	15	14:42	0	6	6	2	54.2	50.0
Game 1–10		7		0	4	4	-1	54.2	50.0
Game 11–20		8		0	2	2	3	54.2	50.0

Colton Dach

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Colton Dach	LW	20	13:52	2	2	4	-6	40.4	45.5
Game 1–10		10		1	2	3	-3	40.4	45.5
Game 11–20		10		1	0	1	-3	40.4	45.5

Jason Dickinson

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Jason Dickinson	C	8	15:17	1	2	3	-1	53.4	50.0
Game 1–10		7		1	2	3	1	53.4	50.0
Game 11–20		1		0	0	0	-2	52.4	65.0

Sam Rinzel

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Sam Rinzel	D	19	20:10	1	3	4	5	52.4	65.0
Game 1–10		10		1	2	3	3	52.4	65.0
Game 11–20		9		0	1	1	2	52.4	65.0

Alex Vlasic

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Alex Vlasic	D	19	14:43	1	3	4	0	30.6	33.3
Game 1–10		9		0	3	3	0	30.6	33.3
Game 11–20		10		0	0	0	-6	30.6	33.3

Artyom Levshunov

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Artyom Levshunov	D	19	14:43	0	11	11	0	50.8	66.7
Game 1–10		9		0	3	3	3	50.8	66.7
Game 11–20		10		0	8	8	-3	50.8	66.7

Ryan Greene

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Ryan Greene	C	20	11:57	2	3	5	4	31.1	50.0
Game 1–10		10		1	1	2	1	31.1	50.0
Game 11–20		10		1	2	3	3	31.1	50.0

Matt Grzelcyk

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Matt Grzelcyk	D	20	15:05	0	4	4	9	9	73.3
Game 1–10		10		0	2	2	4	42.9	57.9
Game 11–20		10		0	2	2	5	42.9	57.9

Wyatt Kaiser

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Wyatt Kaiser	D	20	19:49	0	3	3	10	42.9	57.9
Game 1–10		10		0	2	2	4	42.9	57.9
Game 11–20		10		0	1	1	6	42.9	57.9

Connor Murphy

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Connor Murphy	D	20	16:08	0	3	3	-1	28.9	18.2
Game 1–10		10		0	0	0	-2	28.9	18.2
Game 11–20		10		0	3	3	1	0	0

Landon Slaggert

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Landon Slaggert	LW	8	9:56	1	0	1	0	46.7	50.5
Game 1–10		3		0	0	0	-1	46.7	50.5
Game 11–20		5		1	0	1	1	0	0

Sam Lafferty

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Sam Lafferty	C	8	7:47	1	0	1	1	46.7	50.5
Game 1–10		3		0	0	0	0	46.7	50.5
Game 11–20		5		1	0	1	1	0	0

Oliver Moore

Player	Pos	GP	TOI (AVG)	G	A	PTS	+/-	xGF%	GF%
Oliver Moore	C	8	0:00	2	3	5	2	0	0
Game 1–10		0	0:00	0	0	0	0	0	0
Game 11–20		8	0:00	2	3	5	2	0	0

Goaltenders	Pos	GP	Record	GAA	SV%	GSAx
Spencer Knight	G	14	7-4-3	2.47	0.922	8.8
Game 1–10		7	4-2-1	2.11	0.930	8.8
Game 11–20		7	3-2-2	2.83	0.915	8.8
A.Söderblom	G	6	3-2-1	2.52	0.912	0.7
Game 1–10		3	1-1-1	3.01	0.888	0.7
Game 11–20		3	2-1-0	2.03	0.932	0.7

How Player Grades Are Determined

Each player’s grade is based on a combination of individual performance, consistency, impact on the team, and role execution through the first 10 games of the 2025–26 season.

Here’s how the evaluation works:

• Statistics & Analytics: Goals, assists, points, plus/minus, time on ice, faceoff %, possession numbers (CF%, xGF%), and situational play such as power play and penalty kill usage.

• Role & Expectation: Players are judged relative to their role — a rookie or third-pair defenseman won’t be evaluated the same way as a top-line center or starting goalie.

• Consistency & Game Impact: Effort, decision-making, and performance shift to shift. Players who make key plays or respond in big moments earn higher marks.

• Coaching Trust & Usage: Ice time, matchups, and the coach’s confidence in the player during key situations reflect how reliable they’ve been.

• Growth & Development: For younger players, improvement, adaptation to the NHL pace, and maturity are important factors.

Grades range from A (Outstanding) to D (Poor) — with B representing solid, reliable play and C meaning room for improvemen

Players Ranking

PLAYERS	Game  11 – 20	Game 1 – 10
Connor Bedard	A+	A+
Frank Nazar	B-	A
Tyler Bertuzzi	A	B
Ryan Donato	B-	B+
Ilya Mikheyev	B-	A-
Andrei Burakovsky	A	B
Teuvo Teravainen	B	B+
Colton Dach	C	C
Jason Dickinson	C	C
Ryan Greene	B	C
Nick Foligno	C	C
Sam Lafferty	C	D
Landon Slaggert	C-	C-
Oliver Moore	———	B
DEFENSE
Player	Game  11 – 20	Game 1 – 10
Alex Vlasic	B	B+
Sam Rinzel	C	B
Wyatt Kaiser	B	B-
Connor Murphy	C+	C
Matt Grzelchyk	B-	C
Artyom Levshunov	B	C
Louis Crevier	B	C+
GOALTENDER	Game  11 – 20	Game 1 – 10
Spencer Knight	A	A+
Arvid Soderblom	B-	C
COACH
Player	Game  11 – 20	Game 1 – 10
Jeff Blashill	B+	B+

Coaching Staff Evaluation — Jeff Blashill (B+)

Through the first 20 games of the season, Jeff Blashill has done an impressive job managing a young, evolving roster while dealing with constant lineup challenges. With multiple injuries and stretches where the Blackhawks were forced to play with 11 forwards and 7 defensemen, Blashill still kept his team organized and competitive. His structure, pacing, and game management allowed Chicago to repeat a strong 5-3-2 record over the second stretch of ten games, even as the team spent more time in its own zone and faced tougher opponents.

Blashill’s system is becoming more visible with each game — tighter defensive layers, improved puck support, and stronger habits away from the puck. The Blackhawks are not just surviving shifts; they are learning to manage the play, recover quickly, and stay in games even when they don’t control possession. This is the hallmark of a young team buying into a coach’s message.

Player development has also been a major win under Blashill. Connor Bedard exploded with 18 points in Games 11–20, while young players like Artyom Levshunov, Oliver Moore, and Louis Crevier took clear strides in their confidence and roles. Even with Sam Rinzel going through a down stretch, the staff has handled his minutes and matchups with patience. Veterans like Bertuzzi, Teravainen, and Burakovsky also maintained strong production despite injuries and lineup shuffling, a sign that the system works when players execute.

Blashill’s ability to keep the group competitive through injuries, lineup instability, and limited forward depth deserves recognition. A B+ reflects both the progress made and the areas the team still needs to refine — namely reducing long defensive-zone shifts, stabilizing second periods, and improving possession. But overall, Blashill has given this team identity, structure, and belief, and that has kept Chicago in meaningful games through the first 20 contests.

Final Thoughts

The second stretch of ten games showed exactly which players are driving this team forward. Connor Bedard exploded with 18 points in 10 games, establishing himself as one of the most productive players in the NHL during this segment. Tyler Bertuzzi delivered one of his best runs as a Blackhawk with 11 points in just 7 games, bringing energy, grit, and big plays in key moments. The arrival of Oliver Moore gave the lineup a real boost — his 5 points and high-end speed added a new dynamic the team badly needed.

On the blue line, Artyom Levshunov took a major step with 8 points and consistently stronger play, proving why the organization believes he can become a cornerstone defender. Louis Crevier also elevated his game with 6 points and continued steady improvement, showing confidence with the puck and earning more trust from the coaching staff. Even with Sam Rinzel going through a tougher stretch, the overall growth of the young defense group remains a bright spot for the team.

Up front, Andrei Burakovsky quietly produced 9 points in 9 games, giving the Blackhawks another reliable threat when he was healthy, while Teuvo Teravainen added 7 points and continued to be a stabilizing presence in all situations. This was especially important with injuries to Nick Foligno, Jason Dickinson, and games missed from Burakovsky and Bertuzzi. Despite playing long stretches with 7 defensemen and just 11 forwards, the group continued to compete and found ways to stay in games.

Behind the bench, Jeff Blashill deserves real credit for keeping the team structured, organized, and competitive through injuries, lineup juggling, and the natural inconsistency that comes with a young roster. His ability to manage ice time, adjust on the fly, and keep players engaged played a big role in the Blackhawks finishing Games 11–20 with another solid 5-3-2 record.

Overall, this stretch showed growth, resilience, and maturity. Key players stepped up when the team needed them, young talent continued to develop, and the Blackhawks proved they can stay in the fight even when the roster is thin. They still have areas to improve — especially in defensive-zone pressure and second-period play — but they are clearly trending in the right direction. As long as this group keeps working and getting contributions throughout the lineup, they will continue playing meaningful hockey as the season moves forward.

KEEP READING: 

Blackhawks Weekly Recap: (Week 1)

Blackhawks Weekly Recap (Week 2)

Blackhawks Weekly Recap (Week 3)

Blackhawks Weekly Recap (Week 4)

Blackhawks Weekly Recap (Week 5)

Blackhawks Weekly Recap (Week 6)

Blackhawks October Report Card

Looking for discussion? Check out our forums section and weigh in on what’s happening around the NHL!