The Chicago Blackhawks delivered their most encouraging stretch in weeks during Games 41–50, posting a 6-4-0 record and improving their season mark to 21-22-7 (49 points) through 50 games. While Chicago still sits 27th overall in the NHL, this segment represented a noticeable rebound after two difficult stretches that had exposed ongoing depth and structural concerns.
Offensively, the Blackhawks scored 25 goals over the final 10 games (2.50 GF/GP), marking a modest uptick from the previous segment but still ranking 26th league-wide. Shot generation remains a significant issue, as Chicago averaged just 25.6 shots per game, ranking 31st in the NHL. Although shooting percentage improved slightly to 9.8%, five-on-five production continued to lag, with only 15 even-strength goals, highlighting persistent problems sustaining possession and generating consistent high-danger opportunities.
Defensively, Games 41–50 were Chicago’s most stable stretch since early in the season. Goals against dropped to 2.70 per game, and the Blackhawks finished the segment with a -2 goal differential, a notable improvement after being outscored badly in previous segments. However, the underlying metrics remain concerning. Chicago was heavily out-chanced in high-danger situations, posting just 38.38% of high-danger chances (76 HDCF vs. 122 HDCA), the worst mark in the NHL, suggesting that improved results were driven more by execution and goaltending than by territorial control.
Special teams once again played a central role in keeping Chicago competitive. The penalty kill was elite, operating at 92.6% during the segment and ranking 1st in the NHL, consistently neutralizing opponent momentum. The power play also showed signs of life, climbing to 23.1%, which ranked 12th league-wide and provided important secondary offense. Faceoffs improved to 50.0% during the stretch, though the Blackhawks still rank 28th overall on the season.
At five-on-five, the broader concerns remain unchanged. Chicago posted a 45.31% Corsi share, a 41.67% expected-goals share, and continued to be outscored at even strength (22 GA vs. 15 GF). While the win-loss results in Games 41–50 were encouraging, the underlying numbers indicate a team still relying heavily on special teams, goaltending, and situational execution to compensate for ongoing puck-possession and chance-quality deficiencies.
In this edition of our 10-Game Trenches series, we break down how these trends evolved and what they signal moving forward. We analyze team performance, advanced metrics, and individual contributions, grading each player from A to D while tracking their progress across every segment of the season to identify who is trending upward, who is slipping, and where the Blackhawks currently stand in the rebuild.
Team Stats
| Category | Season 2025-26 | Game 1–10 | Game 11–20 | Game 21–30 | Game 31-40 | Game41-50 | NHL Rank |
| Record | 21-22-7 49pts | 5-3-2 | 5-3-2 | 3-5-2 | 2-7-1 | 6-4-0 | 27th |
| GF (Goals For) | 136 | 30 | 33 | 26 | 22 | 25 | 26th |
| GF/GP | 2.72 | 3.30 | 3.30 | 2.30 | 2.10 | 2.50 | 26th |
| GA (Goals Against) | 154 | 23 | 27 | 39 | 38 | 27 | 18th |
| GA/GP | 3.08 | 2.50 | 2.55 | 3.90 | 3.50 | 2.70 | 17th |
| GD (Goal Differential) | -17 | 8 | 6 | -13 | -16 | -2 | 25th |
| PP (Power Play %) | 21.4% | 18.2% | 32.0% | 18.8% | 8.7% | 23.1 | 12th |
| PK (Penalty Kill %) | 85.1% | 86.4% | 79.4% | 84.4% | 83.9% | 92.6 | 1st |
| FOW (Faceoff %) | 47.1% | 47.6% | 45.2% | 46.3% | 44.6% | 50.0 | 28th |
| S/GP (Shots per Game) | 25.1 | 24.5 | 25.5 | 26.1 | 24.1 | 25.6 | 31st |
| SA/GP (Shots Against per Game) | 29.71 | 29.4 | 32.6 | 29.7 | 27.5 | 28.5 | 25th |
| Shots % | 10.8 | 11.2 | 12.9 | 8.8 | 8.7 | 9.8 | 29th |
| NETPEN (Net Penalties) | -22 | -12 | -4 | 0 | -5 | -1 | 30th |
| MINOR (Minor Penalties) | 168 | 48 | 27 | 33 | 31 | 29 | 21st |
| GF 5v5 | 92 | 22 | 22 | 15 | 18 | 15 | 22nd |
| GA 5v5 | 114 | 17 | 17 | 32 | 26 | 22 | 27th |
| CF% (Corsi For %) | 47.1% | 46.7% | 44.1% | 46.87% | 49.94% | 45.31% | 28th |
| xGF% (Expected Goals For %) | 44.72% | 45.3% | 43.4% | 42.45% | 47.32% | 41.67% | 30th |
| HDCF% (High-Danger Scoring Chances For %) | 42.43% | 43.3% | 41.5% | 40.63% | 43.39% | 38.38% | 32nd |
| HDCF-HDCA (Differential) | 308-418 | 95-137 | 78-81 | 57-105 | 82-107 | 76-122 | —— |
All Situations – Record
| Situation | Overall | Home | Away |
| Record | 21-22-7 | 11-12-4 | 10-10-3 |
| When Scoring First | 18-8-3 | 8-5-3 | 10-3-0 |
| When Opponent Scores First | 3-14-4 | 3-7-1 | 0-7-3 |
| When Outshooting Opponent | 8-5-3 | 5-3-2 | 3-2-1 |
| When Outshot by Opponent | 13-14-4 | 6-6-2 | 7-8-2 |
| 1-Goal Games | 9-7-7 | 4-4-4 | 5-3-3 |
| After 1st Period – Lead | 4-4-2 | 2-3-2 | 2-1-0 |
| After 1st Period – Trail | 1-12-1 | 1-6-1 | 0-6-0 |
| After 1st Period – Tie | 16-6-4 | 8-3-1 | 8-3-3 |
| After 2nd Period – Lead | 13-2-1 | 7-1-1 | 6-1-0 |
| After 2nd Period – Trail | 2-16-1 | 2-10-0 | 0-6-1 |
| After 2nd Period – Tie | 6-4-5 | 2-1-3 | 4-3-2 |
Scoring by Period
| OVERALL | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 34 | 46 | 54 | 2 | 136 |
| Opponent | 42 | 54 | 54 | 4 | 154 |
| HOME | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 17 | 27 | 25 | 2 | 71 |
| Opponent | 22 | 29 | 24 | 2 | 77 |
| AWAY | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 17 | 19 | 29 | 0 | 65 |
| Opponent | 20 | 25 | 30 | 2 | 77 |
Shots by Period
| Overall | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 417 | 413 | 401 | 25 | 1256 |
| Opponent | 486 | 502 | 472 | 23 | 1483 |
| Home | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 234 | 211 | 213 | 9 | 667 |
| Opponent | 231 | 252 | 219 | 13 | 715 |
| Away | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 183 | 202 | 188 | 16 | 589 |
| Opponent | 255 | 250 | 253 | 10 | 768 |
What the Numbers Tell Us
The situational data reinforces many of the trends already evident in Chicago’s underlying metrics, while also highlighting exactly where games are being won — and more often, lost.
Scoring First Is Everything
The Blackhawks are 18-8-3 when scoring first, compared to just 3-14-4 when the opponent scores first. This gap underscores how fragile Chicago’s game becomes when forced to chase. When playing with a lead, the structure holds; when trailing, puck possession, chance generation, and confidence all erode quickly. This aligns directly with their bottom-tier five-on-five metrics and difficulty generating sustained pressure.
Shot Volume Still Dictates Outcomes
Chicago is 8-5-3 when outshooting opponents, but 13-14-4 when being outshot — a split that mirrors their season-long struggle to control play. Given that the Blackhawks rank last in shots per game overall, they are frequently operating in less favorable game scripts. Even modest shot advantages tend to tilt results positively, reinforcing the importance of puck possession and zone time for this roster.
First-Period Deficits Are Costly
Few numbers are more telling than Chicago’s 1-12-1 record when trailing after the first period. Early deficits consistently force the Blackhawks out of their comfort zone, where their limited offensive depth and transition struggles are exposed. In contrast, they are 16-6-4 when tied after one, showing that when games remain manageable early, Chicago can stay competitive deep into contests.
Second-Period Performance Is the Swing Factor
The second period continues to be decisive. Chicago is excellent when leading after two (13-2-1), but collapses when trailing (2-16-1). This stark contrast suggests that once the game opens up — longer changes, more transition chances — the Blackhawks struggle to regain control if they fall behind. Protecting leads, however, remains a strength.
Close Games Reflect a Developing Team
In one-goal games, Chicago sits at 9-7-7, a respectable mark that speaks to improved late-game execution and special teams support. However, the high number of overtime and shootout results also reflects a team often unable to create separation at five-on-five.
Scoring Distribution Shows Late Push, Not Early Control
Chicago has been outscored in the first period (34–42) and second period (46–54), while playing opponents evenly in the third (54–54). This pattern suggests a team that responds rather than dictates, often needing time to settle into games before finding offense. Late pushes help close gaps, but early deficits continue to define outcomes.
Shots by Period Confirm the Possession Gap
Across all situations, the Blackhawks have been outshot 1483–1256, with the largest gaps appearing on the road. Away from home, Chicago is outshot 768–589, reinforcing how difficult it is for this team to establish puck control without last change. At home, shot totals are closer, but still slightly tilted toward opponents.
Bottom Line
The numbers paint a consistent picture:
When Chicago plays from ahead or keeps games close early, they can manage outcomes. When forced to chase — especially after the first period — the structural weaknesses show quickly. Improved results in recent segments are real, but sustainability will depend on earlier starts, improved puck possession, and reducing the reliance on special teams to stay competitive.
Players Stats
Connor Bedard
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Connor Bedard | C | 37 | 20 | 28 | 48 | 6 | 42.92 | 51.61 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 12 | 6 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 17 | 2 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | -2 |
Frank Nazar
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Frank Nazar | C | 35 | 6 | 15 | 21 | -7 | 41.20 | 44.74 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 6 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 6 | -6 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -6 | |||
| game 41-50 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ryan Donato
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Ryan Donato | RW | 50 | 10 | 10 | 20 | -13 | 45.77 | 40.74 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 2 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 4 | -1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -7 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 4 | -4 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | -3 |
Teuvo Teravainen
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Teuvo Teravainen | RW | 45 | 9 | 12 | 21 | -12 | 39.07 | 36.84 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 6 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 2 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -7 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -11 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -2 |
Andrei Burakovsky
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Andrei Burakovsky | LW | 44 | 10 | 19 | 29 | -14 | 47.03 | 45.45 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 6 | -1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 6 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 4 | -5 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 5 | -10 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 5 | -4 |
Tyler Bertuzzi
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Tyler Bertuzzi | LW | 46 | 24 | 14 | 38 | -9 | 48.82 | 47.06 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 11 | 1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 9 | -2 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 4 | -8 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 0 |
Ilya Mikheyev
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Ilya Mikheyev | RW | 45 | 9 | 8 | 17 | 0 | 44.18 | 42.50 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 5 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -9 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 0 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
Louis Crevier
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Louis Crevier | D | 47 | 4 | 10 | 14 | 0 | 45.49 | 45.61 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 4 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -2 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 |
Nick Foligno
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Nick Foligno | RW | 28 | 2 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 40.68 | 47.62 |
| Game 1–10 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 4 | -1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 0 | |||||||
| Game 31-40 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
Colton Dach
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Colton Dach | LW | 49 | 3 | 6 | 9 | -14 | 37.77 | 32.35 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | -3 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -3 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -5 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -4 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 9 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Jason Dickinson
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Jason Dickinson | C | 36 | 6 | 4 | 10 | -7 | 51.04 | 42.22 |
| Game 1–10 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -6 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Sam Rinzel
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Sam Rinzel | D | 28 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 44.51 | 50.0 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 4 | -5 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Game 41-50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Alex Vlasic
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Alex Vlasic | D | 49 | 2 | 10 | 12 | -13 | 45.37 | 39.39 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -6 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -7 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -1 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
Artyom Levshunov
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| A. Levshunov | D | 48 | 2 | 19 | 21 | -20 | 42.55 | 39.34 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 8 | 8 | -3 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | -4 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 5 | -9 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | -7 |
Ryan Greene
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Ryan Greene | C | 50 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 1 | 43.69 | 50.82 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 4 | -6 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
Matt Grzelcyk
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Matt Grzelcyk | D | 50 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 46.69 | 51.47 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -2 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -4 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -3 |
Wyatt Kaiser
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Wyatt Kaiser | D | 50 | 5 | 6 | 11 | -4 | 43.37 | 44.93 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -8 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 4 | -2 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -4 |
Connor Murphy
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Connor Murphy | D | 50 | 2 | 7 | 9 | -3 | 46.47 | 47.73 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -4 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -1 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
Landon Slaggert
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Landon Slaggert | LW | 24 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 49.63 | 56.25 |
| Game 1–10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
Sam Lafferty
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Sam Lafferty | C | 19 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 48.50 | 58.33 |
| Game 1–10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Oliver Moore
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Oliver Moore | C | 38 | 5 | 10 | 15 | -14 | 47.05 | 36.59 |
| Game 1–10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | -4 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -2 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 4 | -10 |
Nick Lardis
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Nick Lardis | RW | 10 | 5 | 1 | 6 | -8 | 47.08 | 31.25 |
| Game 1–10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -1 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 4 | -7 |
Dominic Toninato
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| D. Toninato | RW | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 62.61 | 100 |
| Game 1–10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ethan Del Mastro
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| EDM | LD | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 27.75 | 0.00 |
| Game 1–10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Kevin Korchinski
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Kevin Korchinski | LD | 2 | 0 | 1 | 10 | -2 | 20.59 | 25.00 |
| Game 1–10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 41-50 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -2 |
Goaltenders
| Player | Pos | GP | Record | GAA | SV% |
| Spencer Knight | G | 34 | 15-13-6 | 2.55 | 0.910 |
| Game 1–10 | 7 | 4-2-1 | 2.11 | 0.930 | |
| Game 11–20 | 7 | 3-2-2 | 2.83 | 0.915 | |
| Game 21-30 | 7 | 3-2-2 | 2.55 | 0.902 | |
| Game 31-40 | 7 | 1-5-1 | 2.61 | 0.896 | |
| Game 41-50 | 6 | 4-2-0 | 2.12 | 0.930 | |
| A.Söderblom | G | 14 | 5-8-1 | 3.75 | 0.874 |
| Game 1–10 | 3 | 1-1-1 | 3.01 | 0.888 | |
| Game 11–20 | 3 | 2-1-0 | 2.03 | 0.932 | |
| Game 21-30 | 3 | 0-3-0 | 6.71 | 0.823 | |
| Game 31-40 | 3 | 1-2-0 | 4.28 | 0.862 | |
| Game 41-50 | 2 | 1-1-0 | 3.60 | 0.816 | |
| D.Commesso | G | 2 | 1-1-0 | 2.50 | 0.917 |
| Game 1–10 | 0 | 0-0-0 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| Game 11–20 | 0 | 0-0-0 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| Game 21-30 | 0 | 0-0-0 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| Game 31-40 | 0 | 0-0-0 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| Game 41-50 | 2 | 1-1-0 | 2.50 | 0.917 |
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
Blackhawks Player Grades
| Player | Game 41-50 | Game 31-40 | Game 21-30 | Game 11-20 | Game 1 – 10 |
| Connor Bedard | B- | A+ | A+ | A+ | A+ |
| Frank Nazar | C | C | C+ | B- | A |
| Tyler Bertuzzi | A | B | A | A | B |
| Ryan Donato | C | C- | C | B- | B+ |
| Ilya Mikheyev | B | C+ | C | B- | A- |
| Andrei Burakovsky | B- | B | B | A | B |
| Teuvo Teravainen | C+ | C- | B- | B | B+ |
| Colton Dach | C- | C | C | C | C |
| Jason Dickinson | C | C+ | C+ | C | C |
| Ryan Greene | B- | B | B | B | C |
| Nick Foligno | C | C | —— INJURY | C | C |
| Sam Lafferty | D | C- | C- | C | D |
| Landon Slaggert | C+ | C- | C- | C- | C- |
| Oliver Moore | C | B- | B- | B | —- AHL |
| Nick Lardis | B- | C | |||
| Dominic Toninato | AHL | C | |||
| Defense | Game 41-50 | Game 31-40 | Game 21 – 30 | Game 11 – 20 | Game 1 – 10 |
| Alex Vlasic | B | B | B | B | B+ |
| Sam Rinzel | AHL | AHL | C- | C | B |
| Wyatt Kaiser | C+ | B | B- | B | B- |
| Connor Murphy | B | C | C | C+ | C |
| Matt Grzelchyk | C | C+ | C | B- | C |
| Artyom Levshunov | C- | C+ | B- | B | C |
| Louis Crevier | B | B | B | B- | C+ |
| Goalies | Game 41-50 | Game 31-40 | Game 21-30 | Game 11 – 20 | Game 1 – 10 |
| Spencer Knight | A | A- | A | A | A+ |
| Arvid Soderblom | C | D | D | B- | C |
| Drew Commesso | B | ||||
| COACH | |||||
| Name | Game 41-50 | Game 31-40 | Game 21-30 | Game 11-20 | Game 1 – 10 |
| Jeff Blashill | B+ | C | B- | B+ | B+ |
| Player | Game 41-50 | Game 31-40 | Game 21-30 | Game 11-20 | Game 1 – 10 |
| Connor Bedard | B- | A+ | A+ | A+ | A+ |
| Frank Nazar | C | C | C+ | B- | A |
| Tyler Bertuzzi | A | B | A | A | B |
| Ryan Donato | C | C- | C | B- | B+ |
| Ilya Mikheyev | B | C+ | C | B- | A- |
| Andrei Burakovsky | B- | B | B | A | B |
| Teuvo Teravainen | C+ | C- | B- | B | B+ |
| Colton Dach | C- | C | C | C | C |
| Jason Dickinson | C | C+ | C+ | C | C |
| Ryan Greene | B- | B | B | B | C |
| Nick Foligno | C | C | —— INJURY | C | C |
| Sam Lafferty | D | C- | C- | C | D |
| Landon Slaggert | C+ | C- | C- | C- | C- |
| Oliver Moore | C | B- | B- | B | —- AHL |
| Nick Lardis | B- | C | |||
| Dominic Toninato | AHL | C | |||
| DEFENSE | |||||
| Player | Game 31-40 | Game 21 – 30 | Game 11 – 20 | Game 1 – 10 | |
| Alex Vlasic | B | B | B | B | B+ |
| Sam Rinzel | AHL | AHL | C- | C | B |
| Wyatt Kaiser | C+ | B | B- | B | B- |
| Connor Murphy | B | C | C | C+ | C |
| Matt Grzelchyk | C | C+ | C | B- | C |
| Artyom Levshunov | C- | C+ | B- | B | C |
| Louis Crevier | B | B | B | B- | C+ |
| Player | Game 11 – 20 | Game 1 – 10 | |||
| Spencer Knight | A | A- | A | A | A+ |
| Arvid Soderblom | C | D | D | B- | C |
| Drew Commesso | B | ||||
| COACH | |||||
| Name | Game 41-50 | Game 31-40 | Game 21-30 | Game 11-20 | Game 1 – 10 |
| Jeff Blashill | B+ | C | B- | B+ | B+ |
Blackhawks Player Assessment – Games 41–50
Despite continued structural challenges, the Blackhawks showed tangible progress during Games 41–50, finishing the segment 6-4-0 while navigating injuries, illness, and lineup instability. Several veterans stepped up offensively, young players made noticeable contributions, and goaltending provided timely support, even as inconsistency remained a defining theme for others.
Blackhawks Top Performers
Tyler Bertuzzi
Bertuzzi was the offensive driver of this 10-game stretch. He led the team with five goals, including two game-winning goals, providing timely scoring when Chicago needed it most. With Connor Bedard limited to six games and Frank Nazar appearing in just one, Bertuzzi consistently filled the leadership void by attacking the middle of the ice and finishing in high-traffic areas.
His ability to convert chances late in games and deliver in close situations was a key reason the Blackhawks stayed competitive during this stretch. Bertuzzi didn’t just produce — his goals mattered.
Andrei Burakovsky
Burakovsky finished the 10-game segment with five points (one goal, four assists), providing secondary offense during a stretch marked by injuries, illness, and constant line shuffling. While he did not drive the offense the way Tyler Bertuzzi did, Burakovsky remained a steady puck distributor and a contributor on the power play.
His five-on-five impact continued to fluctuate, particularly as puck possession and sustained zone time were inconsistent for the team as a whole. Still, Burakovsky’s ability to facilitate plays, support younger linemates, and contribute offensively in spurts helped stabilize the lineup during a challenging stretch.
Ilya Mikheyev
Mikheyev finished the 10-game stretch with five points (one goal), but his true value went far beyond the scoresheet. He was a major driver of the penalty kill, using his speed, anticipation, and pressure to disrupt entries, force rushed decisions, and create clears. His impact shorthanded was a key reason the Blackhawks’ penalty kill operated at an elite level and ranked best in the NHL during this segment.
At even strength, Mikheyev’s transition game remained important, particularly during stretches where sustained zone time was difficult to establish. His ability to pressure puck carriers, win races, and turn broken plays into counterattacks helped Chicago survive difficult shifts. While his offensive contributions were steady, it was his shorthanded work and defensive reliability that truly set him apart during Games 41–50.
Nick Lardis
Lardis continued to make a strong case for a permanent NHL role. He led all rookies during this segment with three goals, finishing with four points, and showed natural scoring instincts that translated immediately at the NHL level. His confidence, timing, and willingness to attack scoring areas stood out.
Even when offense was limited, Lardis consistently looked dangerous, and his chemistry with fellow young forwards continued to show promise. Unfortunately, he was sent down to Rockford on Monday, January 26.
Ryan Greene
Greene recorded four points while taking on heavy defensive responsibilities, but his role expanded significantly during this stretch due to injuries to Connor Bedard and Frank Nazar. Asked to step into a top-six role and cover difficult minutes against top competition, Greene handled the increased responsibility with maturity and composure.
Despite the challenging assignments and frequent matchup duties, he played a responsible two-way game, showing strong awareness, reliable puck support, and a willingness to compete in all three zones. His ability to contribute offensively without cheating defensively was an encouraging sign for a young center being asked to do far more than originally planned — and overall, he held up well under pressure.
Oliver Moore
Moore chipped in four points and continued to bring speed, energy, and transition ability to the lineup. His ability to push pace, create clean zone entries, and turn loose pucks into quick attacks helped Chicago avoid getting hemmed in for extended stretches, especially during games where sustained possession was hard to establish.
However, the defensive side of his game remains a work in progress. Moore finished the 10-game segment at minus-10, reflecting breakdowns away from the puck, missed coverage reads, and challenges handling defensive-zone assignments against top competition. The tools are obvious — speed, skill, and confidence — but improving his defensive awareness and consistency will be essential as his role continues to grow.
Teuvo Teräväinen
Teräväinen played six games during the 10-game stretch due to injury, but when he was in the lineup, he did not struggle. Despite limited availability and disrupted line continuity — including an early exit against Edmonton after playing roughly six minutes — Teräväinen consistently showed his value through puck management, vision, and playmaking ability.
While his production on the scoresheet was modest, Teräväinen’s impact goes beyond raw point totals. At five-on-five and on the power play, he helped facilitate cleaner puck movement, supported zone entries, and improved offensive structure for a team that often struggled to generate sustained pressure. The Blackhawks’ broader offensive issues during this stretch were systemic and injury-related, not a reflection of Teräväinen’s individual performance.
When healthy and in rhythm, his ability to slow the game down, make high-level reads, and create plays remains an important stabilizing element in Chicago’s forward group.
Alex Vlasic & Connor Murphy
Both defensemen delivered strong, steady performances during Games 41–50. Vlasic’s positioning, reach, and defensive reads were consistently reliable, while Murphy provided physicality, shot blocking, and veteran composure. Together, they helped stabilize a blue line that has often struggled with consistency.
Landon Slaggert
Slaggert played solid, engaged hockey, finishing with three points in 10 games. His forechecking, effort level, and defensive commitment were noticeably improved. Even when not producing, his shifts were effective and purposeful.
Blackhawks Goaltending Notes
Spencer Knight was excellent during Games 41–50 and provided the backbone for the team’s improved results. He finished the segment 4-2-0 with a 2.12 goals-against average and a .930 save percentage, consistently giving the Blackhawks a chance to win even when defensive breakdowns occurred. Knight’s calm positioning, rebound control, and ability to make timely saves were critical in close games and helped stabilize the group during a stretch marked by injuries and lineup disruption.
Drew Commesso made a strong impression after being recalled, posting a .917 save percentage and a 2.50 GAA, highlighted by a shutout in his second NHL game of the season. His poise and confidence stood out, and the performance served as a meaningful boost both for the player and the organization as he continues his development.
On the other end of the spectrum, Arvid Söderblom experienced a more difficult stretch. He finished the segment with a 3.60 GAA and an .817 save percentage, struggling with consistency and timely saves. While he managed to pick up a win, the overall results reinforced ongoing concerns about reliability when he is called upon.
Blackhawks Players Impacted by the Stretch
Colton Dach
This was arguably Dach’s most difficult stretch of the season. His play dipped noticeably, and he was healthy scratched for one game, reflecting struggles with consistency, pace, and execution. With expectations rising, this segment highlighted areas that still need refinement.
Artyom Levshunov
Levshunov’s inconsistency remained evident. While flashes of skill and composure appeared, they were offset by defensive lapses and uneven decision-making. The tools are obvious, but the execution continues to fluctuate.
Arvid Söderblom
Söderblom finally picked up a win during this stretch, but overall inconsistency remained a concern. While improved moments were evident, his ability to string together reliable performances is still unresolved.
Context Matters
This 10-game stretch was heavily affected by circumstances:
- Bedard played only six games
- Nazar appeared in just one
- Multiple players missed back-to-back games due to illness (flu/bug)
- Line combinations changed frequently
- Defensive and goaltending depth was tested
Despite that, Chicago managed to post a winning record over the segment — a meaningful development.
Bottom Line
Games 41–50 showed tangible progress, even if the underlying issues remain. Veteran scorers delivered when needed, young players continued to push forward, and organizational depth was tested — and in some cases, rewarded. The results were better, the effort more consistent, and the response to adversity stronger than earlier stretches.
The challenge now is sustainability.
If the Blackhawks can build on this momentum with a healthier lineup, the next 10 games will tell us whether this was a short-term response — or the beginning of real stabilization.
Coaching Evaluation: Games 41–50
Jeff Blashill (B+)
Games 41–50 represented one of Jeff Blashill’s most impressive stretches behind the bench this season — not because the Blackhawks suddenly became an offensive team, but because they stayed competitive, structured, and mentally engaged despite overwhelming adversity.
Chicago finished the segment 6–4–0 while missing key offensive drivers for most of the stretch. Connor Bedard and Frank Nazar were both out for extended periods, Teuvo Teräväinen missed time, and multiple players battled illness that forced back-to-back absences and constant lineup disruption. Simply put, this was a roster that should have fallen apart offensively — and it didn’t.
Preparation Over Production
With elite offensive talent unavailable, Blashill shifted the team’s identity. Rather than chasing offense that wasn’t there, the Blackhawks leaned heavily into structure, discipline, and defensive commitment. The result was a group that remained hard to play against, even when goals were difficult to come by.
The penalty kill became the backbone of that identity and one of the defining reasons this stretch stayed competitive. Chicago’s PK was among the best in the league during this segment, driven by clear structure, aggressive pressure, and excellent deployment of players like Ilya Mikheyev and Jason Dickinson. That’s coaching preparation showing up every night.
Roster Management and Defensive Adjustments
Blashill also deserves credit for stabilizing the blue line under difficult circumstances. The pairing of Alex Vlasic and Louis Crevier was a direct response to the team’s needs — size, reach, simplicity, and defensive awareness. That duo provided reliable minutes, protected the middle of the ice, and allowed the rest of the defense corps to slot into more appropriate roles.
Connor Murphy and Alex Vlasic both delivered strong stretches, while Wyatt Kaiser continued his steady development.
Young Players Stepping Into Bigger Roles
With Bedard and Nazar out, Blashill didn’t shelter his young players — he trusted them.
Ryan Greene was elevated into top-six minutes, tasked with difficult matchups and defensive responsibility, and handled the assignment far better than expected. Oliver Moore and Nick Lardis were given opportunities to inject speed and offense, and while there were growing pains, the evaluation process was clear and intentional.
This wasn’t lineup roulette. Roles were defined, expectations were clear, and young players were put in positions to learn without being overwhelmed.
Blackhawks Goaltending Usage and Trust
The coaching staff also managed the goaltending situation well. Spencer Knight continued to give the team a chance most nights, while Drew Commesso’s recall and usage were handled intelligently. Commesso’s shutout performance wasn’t just a goalie story — it was a product of defensive buy-in and team structure in front of him.
Even when Arvid Söderblom struggled, the staff didn’t let those games spiral into total breakdowns, keeping the group focused and competitive.
Why a B+ — Not Higher, Not Lower
Why not lower?
- The team stayed organized despite missing its top offensive players
- Defensive structure and PK identity were clearly established
- Young players were trusted, evaluated, and supported
- Lineup chaos from injuries and illness was managed effectively
Why not higher?
- Offensive generation remained a major issue
- Five-on-five scoring was inconsistent
- The margin for error was razor thin most nights
This wasn’t a perfect stretch — but given the circumstances, it was a well-coached one.
Jeff Blashill didn’t just survive this segment — he kept the group together, maintained buy-in, and gave the Blackhawks a chance to win games they had no business being competitive in on paper. That’s why this stretch earns a B+, and why it stands out as one of the better coaching segments of the season.
The next phase will test whether this defensive identity can hold once the roster gets healthier — but in Games 41–50, the response behind the bench was real.
Final Thought: Blackhawks Contrasts
Games 41–50 were a stretch defined by contrasts. The Blackhawks finished 6–4–0, a solid result on paper, but one that came through grinding, defensive hockey rather than offensive flow. With Connor Bedard missing time, Frank Nazar nearly absent, Teuvo Teräväinen limited, and multiple players sidelined by illness, expectations had to be reset quickly — and so did the team’s identity.
Offensively, Chicago struggled to generate consistent five-on-five pressure and relied heavily on secondary scoring. There were clear highs, including strong performances from veterans like Bertuzzi and Burakovsky, encouraging contributions from young players such as Moore, Greene, and Lardis, and timely goals that kept games within reach. At the same time, cold stretches, blown opportunities, and uneven execution highlighted how thin the margin for error became without elite offensive drivers.
Defensively, however, this was one of the team’s more structured segments. The penalty kill was elite and often game-changing, new defensive pairings — including Crevier with Vlasic — brought stability, and the group committed to protecting the middle of the ice. Goaltending played a major role as well, with Knight providing consistency and Commesso delivering a confidence-boosting shutout, allowing Chicago to stay competitive even when outshot or outplayed.
Overall, this stretch reflected a team learning how to survive adversity. The results weren’t dominant, the hockey wasn’t always clean, but the effort, structure, and buy-in were evident. Given the injuries, illness, and lack of offensive depth, Games 41–50 met — and in some ways exceeded — realistic expectations. The foundation held, even when conditions were far from ideal, and that matters as much as the record itself.
KEEP READING:
Blackhawks October Report Card
Blackhawks: November Report Card
