RFDCentral Division · 7th of 7 · Chicago Blackhawks

RockfordIceHogs

BMO Center, Rockford, IL

28-39-5
Record: 61
Points: 196
Goals for: 245
Against: -49
Differential

At home12-21-393–126 (-33)

On the road16-18-2103–119 (-16)

Last 104-6-0 · oldest first

The story

By chance quality RFD were a middle club: 30th of 32 in creation, 24th of 32 in suppression.

They finished 16 goals above what the chances were worth (23rd of 32 in shooting), and conceded 40 more than the chances against were worth (19th of 32 in save percentage).

The power play was 31st of 32 at 13.1%.

Where RFD ranks

Expected Goals For % · 29 of 32

46.80%

xGF/60 · 30 of 32

2.47

xGA/60 · 24 of 32

2.81

Scoring Chance % · 24 of 32

47.39%

High Danger Chance % · 27 of 32

47.34%

Shooting % · 23 of 32

10.17%

Save % · 19 of 32

88.9%

PDO · 21 of 32

99.1%

Power Play % · 31 of 32

13.15%

Penalty Kill % · 24 of 32

79.78%

Special Teams Index · 31 of 32

92.93%

Rush Share of Goals · 21 of 32

39.3%

Goals For · 28 of 32

196

Goals Against · 28 of 32

245

Each bar is a percentile against all 32 clubs, with the league median on the tick. Metrics where less is better are flipped, so longer is always better.

Shots for and against

RFD1,928 shots · 180 xG

quiet3.0 xG per 5 ft

Allowed2,210 shots · 205 xG

quiet3.0 xG per 5 ft

Special teams

	Goals	Chances	Rate
Power play	33	251	13.1%
Penalty kill	56	277	79.8%

Special-teams index 92.9 — power play plus penalty kill, the one number that says whether a club wins the nights the referee decides.

How the game unfolds

1st period45.8%of goals scored

Goals: 60–71
xG share: 48.1%

2nd period47.3%of goals scored

Goals: 69–77
xG share: 42.6%

3rd period39.1%of goals scored

Goals: 59–92
xG share: 49.2%

	1st	2nd	3rd
Goals for	60	69	59
Goals against	71	77	92
xG for	56.7	55.3	65.6
xG against	61.1	74.4	67.7
Shots for	616	600	691
Shots against	712	767	706

Share of goals is this club’s goals as a percentage of every goal scored in that period, so 50% is even. xG share is the same sum over chance quality, which says whether the result matched the play. Regulation only — overtime is three skaters a side and a different game.

How the goals came

Goals	For	Share	Against	Share
Off the rush	77	39.3%	106	43.3%
Off the cycle	88	44.9%	105	42.9%
In a scramble	29	14.8%	32	13.1%

Attempts	For	Sh%	Against	Sv%
Off the rush	448	17.2%	512	79.3%
Off the cycle	1372	6.4%	1564	93.3%
In a scramble	108	26.9%	134	76.1%

A rush is the first shot of a possession, taken inside 40 ft up the middle; the cycle is a shot after sustained pressure, or a first shot from distance or the wall; a scramble is a second attempt inside four seconds. League-wide they convert at about 17%, 8% and 23%. Shares are of goals scored in play — shootout winners are not shots.

Volume

	For	Against
Shots	1928	2210
Expected goals	180.5	205.2
Scoring chances	644	—
High-danger chances	302	—

With a lead, level, and from behind

Score state	Share of play	GF–GA	GF%	GF% ex. EN	xGF%	SF%	Sh%ex. EN	Sv%ex. EN
Leading	27%1,158 min	58–64	47.5%lg 52.4%	42.3%lg 48.0%	46.1%lg 48.1%	41.7%lg 46.5%	10.6%lg 10.4%	89.9%lg 90.4%
Tied	32%1,402 min	60–79	43.2%lg 50.0%	43.2%lg 50.0%	46.2%lg 50.0%	46.6%lg 50.0%	9.8%lg 9.6%	88.8%lg 90.4%
Trailing	41%1,760 min	70–97	41.9%lg 47.6%	47.3%lg 52.0%	47.2%lg 51.9%	49.7%lg 53.5%	8.3%lg 9.6%	90.6%lg 89.6%

Regulation only — overtime is three-on-three and always starts level, so pooling it here would contaminate every rate. The small figure under each percentage is the league in the same score state; RFD being above it is the claim, not the percentage itself. GF% ex. EN drops empty-net goals from both sides, and across the league it reverses the headline: clubs are outscored at even play while protecting a lead, and outscore while chasing. The empty net is what settles it.

2025-26 skaters · 37

Player	GP	G	A	P	SOG	ixG
Brett SeneyF	66	17	34	51	127	13.98
Rem PitlickLW	69	22	28	50	106	13.20
Dominic ToninatoC	52	16	27	43	131	16.27
Derrick PouliotD	68	2	32	34	97	4.75
Joey AndersonRW	52	17	16	33	113	15.81
Nick LardisF	35	18	14	32	100	10.66
Jamie EngelbertF	70	9	19	28	120	15.19
Gavin HayesF	57	13	13	26	111	12.49
Kevin KorchinskiD	53	2	24	26	60	2.78
Samuel SavoieF	62	12	14	26	96	9.73
Kevin LombardiF	45	13	10	23	90	9.81
Aidan ThompsonF	58	8	14	22	98	8.96
Nolan AllanD	64	4	16	20	76	3.67
Ethan Del MastroD	45	2	16	18	62	3.18
Dmitry KuzminD	46	6	9	15	47	2.58
Martin MisiakF	63	4	11	15	63	5.63
Ryan MastD	46	0	14	14	51	2.53
Sam RinzelD	23	2	12	14	68	4.32
Jake FurlongD	42	3	8	11	46	1.82
Connor MylymokLW	52	3	7	10	48	5.23
Oliver MooreF	9	6	3	9	23	2.58
Taige HardingD	47	3	6	9	45	1.68
Dillon BoucherF	53	3	5	8	38	2.82
Jackson CatesF	29	4	4	8	44	4.17
Cavan FitzgeraldD	37	2	5	7	57	3.16
Ryan GagnierC	37	5	2	7	40	3.06
Andrew PerrottD	51	1	3	4	49	1.53
Brayden HislopD	13	0	4	4	13	0.58
Landon SlaggertF	8	2	2	4	14	1.65
Harrison IsraelsC	31	1	2	3	34	3.51
Chase DafoeF	9	2	0	2	4	0.52
Jiri FelcmanF	7	0	2	2	3	0.28
Paul LudwinskiF	3	1	1	2	1	0.23
Ryland MosleyLW	13	1	1	2	16	1.62
Josh LopinaC	16	1	0	1	16	1.72
Marcel MarcelF	13	1	0	1	12	2.06
Jake MurrayD	2	0	0	0	3	0.07

2025-26 goaltending

Goalie	GP	W	SV%	GAA	GSAx
Drew Commesso	37	13	90.1%	3.08	-9.5
Laurent Brossoit	28	15	90.1%	3.06	-0.3
Stanislav Berezhnoy	16	5	88.6%	3.30	-7.0
Olivier Rodrigue	10	4	89.1%	3.20	-4.6
Owen Flores	5	3	92.8%	1.98	3.6
Mitchell Weeks	2	0	85.0%	5.39	-0.7
Adam Gajan	1	0	92.3%	3.01	0.4

Full schedule · 72 regular

Recent Full schedule

Date	Opp	Result	Goals	xG
2025-10-11	vs MIL	W	3–2	2.3–3.4
2025-10-12	@ IA	W	6–2	4.4–2.3
2025-10-17	vs TEX	W	2–1	1.8–2.6
2025-10-18	@ CHI	W	3–2	2.9–3.8
2025-10-19	@ CHI	L	5–6	2.8–2.8
2025-10-24	@ COL	L	0–5	2.7–4.8
2025-10-25	@ COL	W	4–0	2.6–3.7
2025-10-28	@ CHI	W	6–1	4.4–1.5
2025-11-01	vs GR	L	2–4	2.5–2.5
2025-11-02	@ GR	L	2–6	2.3–4.5
2025-11-07	@ MIL	OTL	1–2	2.1–2.9
2025-11-08	vs MIL	L	0–2	2.2–1.7
2025-11-09	@ IA	W	3–2	1.8–2.0
2025-11-12	vs MB	L	2–3	2.4–2.0
2025-11-15	vs MB	L	2–5	2.4–2.6
2025-11-16	vs TEX	OTL	2–3	2.8–2.6
2025-11-19	vs GR	L	1–5	2.0–4.0
2025-11-21	@ TEX	W	4–3	2.8–2.0
2025-11-22	@ TEX	L	2–5	2.6–2.6
2025-11-26	vs CHI	L	4–8	3.5–4.1
2025-11-28	vs MIL	OTL	2–3	4.1–1.6
2025-11-30	@ MIL	W	3–2	3.1–1.9
2025-12-05	vs COL	L	3–5	3.3–2.7
2025-12-06	vs COL	L	1–2	2.4–2.2
2025-12-10	@ IA	W	4–3	2.3–3.7
2025-12-12	vs MIL	W	5–3	3.3–3.5
2025-12-13	@ GR	L	0–1	2.0–1.8
2025-12-20	@ MB	W	7–3	4.4–2.9
2025-12-21	@ MB	L	1–4	3.1–3.5
2025-12-27	vs TEX	W	8–4	3.4–3.0
2025-12-30	@ MIL	L	0–3	3.1–3.0
2025-12-31	vs CHI	L	2–3	1.3–3.7
2026-01-03	@ HER	L	4–5	2.7–2.0
2026-01-04	@ HER	L	2–5	1.7–2.4
2026-01-09	vs CHI	L	1–3	1.1–2.3
2026-01-10	vs MB	OTL	2–3	2.1–3.5
2026-01-13	vs MB	W	6–2	4.5–2.5
2026-01-16	@ GR	W	3–1	2.1–3.1
2026-01-17	@ CHI	L	2–5	4.1–2.8
2026-01-18	vs CHI	W	6–5	4.2–2.3
2026-01-23	vs TEX	L	0–5	1.8–4.1
2026-01-24	vs CHI	L	1–4	1.9–2.4
2026-01-27	@ MIL	L	3–5	4.0–3.8
2026-01-31	@ MB	L	1–4	1.1–3.1
2026-02-01	@ MB	L	1–2	2.3–2.2
2026-02-06	vs IA	L	2–5	2.5–2.5
2026-02-07	@ MIL	W	3–1	1.5–2.5
2026-02-14	vs MIL	W	6–2	3.0–2.0
2026-02-15	vs MIL	L	1–4	1.7–3.3
2026-02-21	vs SD	L	4–5	1.9–2.8
2026-02-22	vs SD	W	2–1	2.8–2.1
2026-02-27	vs HER	L	1–4	2.2–2.3
2026-02-28	vs HER	L	1–5	2.1–2.8
2026-03-04	@ GR	L	3–7	4.6–2.8
2026-03-06	@ SD	W	3–2	1.3–2.8
2026-03-07	@ SD	L	4–6	2.1–3.6
2026-03-11	@ MIL	OTL	1–2	2.1–2.2
2026-03-13	vs CHI	W	4–1	2.6–2.4
2026-03-14	vs IA	W	4–3	1.5–3.2
2026-03-20	vs GR	L	2–4	1.5–2.4
2026-03-21	@ CHI	W	4–2	2.0–4.0
2026-03-22	vs GR	W	4–1	2.0–2.6
2026-03-28	vs IA	W	3–2	2.1–2.9
2026-03-29	@ IA	W	4–3	1.9–3.2
2026-04-01	vs GR	L	0–5	1.2–2.8
2026-04-03	@ IA	W	5–2	3.0–1.4
2026-04-04	vs IA	L	0–4	1.1–2.7
2026-04-10	vs IA	L	4–5	3.2–2.7
2026-04-11	@ GR	W	5–2	2.0–2.3
2026-04-12	@ CHI	L	2–4	2.4–3.4
2026-04-17	@ TEX	L	1–6	2.1–4.1
2026-04-18	@ TEX	L	1–5	1.3–4.9