Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Wed, Oct 8 · the slate
Breakdown · CGY at EDM

Flames edge the Oilers in a shootout

Final / OTWed, Oct 8
CGYCalgary Flames4EDMEdmonton Oilers3
The verdict · stolen

The Flames stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.73–3.17 and won anyway.

CGY 4 · EDM 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:13 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Oilers controlled this game in underlying metrics—61% of shot attempts, 54% of expected goals (3.17–2.73)—yet the Flames won 4-3 in a shootout. Calgary overperformed its xG by 1.27 goals, a margin that captured how thoroughly the numbers favored Edmonton.

Edmonton was lethal where it mattered. They scored twice on 29 rush chances and twice on 15 power-play shots (1.20 xG). High-danger chances split even at 4–4. But S. Skinner's goaltending faltered: a 0.864 save percentage (19 of 22) on an indefensible volume left Edmonton exposed.

D. Wolf's 0.914 (32 of 35) held. Calgary scored twice on 22 rush chances—not dominant, but enough. The shootout came down to one shot: Nazem Kadri's backhander from the doorstep, which decided the night.

The Three Stars belonged to Edmonton, the team that generated the better game despite falling short in the only moment that mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Oct 8
CGY
4
EDM
3

Flames edge the Oilers in a shootout

Chances 2.7 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
2.73
EDM
3.17
46% of the chances54%

The board read CGY 4, EDM 3. The chances read CGY 2.7, EDM 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
+1.3
goals above expected
CGY2.73 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM3.17 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 09:53EDMR. Nugent-HopkinsPP0–1
  2. P1 16:11EDMA. Mangiapane0–2
  3. P2 08:32EDML. DraisaitlPP0–3
  4. P2 12:40CGYM. Gridin1–3
  5. P2 14:47CGYC. ZaryPP2–3
  6. P3 00:40CGYB. Coleman3–3
  7. SO 00:00EDML. DraisaitlPP3–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
44 shots
5
Final
99 shots
EDM
55 shots
4
CGY attackEDM attack
CGY EDM Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

44
shots · 5 in
55
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYEDM
0 / 4
0.92 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.89 xG
3 / 14
1.51 xG
Medium
3 / 16
1.59 xG
0 / 39
0.29 xG
Low
0 / 46
0.68 xG

The Oilers went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
D. Wolf
+0.2
CGY · 32/35
D
S. Skinner
−0.3
EDM · 19/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames edge the Oilers in a shootout

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 4–9
  1. 09:53EDMR. Nugent-Hopkinspower play(L. Draisaitl, C. McDavid)0–1
  2. 16:11EDMA. Mangiapane(C. McDavid, R. Nugent-Hopkins)0–2
2ndshots 7–11
  1. 08:32EDML. Draisaitlpower play(D. Tomasek, R. Nugent-Hopkins)0–3
  2. 12:40CGYM. Gridin(N. Kadri, M. Coronato)1–3
  3. 14:47CGYC. Zarypower play(A. Klapka)2–3
3rdshots 8–9
  1. 00:40CGYB. Coleman3–3
OTshots 3–6no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00EDML. Draisaitlpower play3–3
    2. 00:00CGYM. Frostpower play3–3
    3. 00:00CGYN. Kadripower play3–3

    score reads CGY–EDM

    Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
    Process vs result

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.73
    CGY chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.007
    CGY puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    46.3%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.73Expected goals3.17
    EDM 54% of the chance quality
    22Shots on goal35
    4High-danger chances4
    57All attempts (Corsi)66
    Adjusted for score: CGY 50% · EDM 50%
    Faceoffs · EDM won48%off53%neu44%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CGY0 / 4 · 0.92 xG
    EDM0 / 4 · 0.89 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CGY3 / 14 · 1.51 xG
    EDM3 / 16 · 1.59 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CGY0 / 39 · 0.29 xG
    EDM0 / 46 · 0.68 xG

    CGY went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.51 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

    Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
    The luck layer

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CGY
    4 G · 2.73 xG · +1.3
    EDM
    3 G · 3.17 xG · -0.2
    012345

    CGY finished +1.3 against expected, EDM -0.2.

    Source · Backcheck xG model
    Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
    What they shot — and what went in

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CGY
    WRIST1/17
    SNAP0/11
    BACKHAND0/3
    SLAP0/1
    TIP IN0/2
    POKE1/1
    BAT1/1
    OTHER0/21
    EDM
    WRIST2/30
    SNAP1/3
    BACKHAND0/4
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN0/3
    POKE0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/19
    CGY
    EDM
    Off the rush
    2 G on 22
    1.85 xG
    2 G on 29
    2.30 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.39 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.27 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 1-for-17, EDM 2-for-30. CGY scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

    Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
    New to these numbers?

    Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

    The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

    xG
    Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
    HD
    High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
    Corsi
    Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
    Adj.
    Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
    GSAx
    Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
    PDO
    Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
    Shot by shot

    In the net

    Graded on goals saved above expected
    D. Wolf
    CGY · 32/35 · .914
    +0.2
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium3/161.6-1.4
    Low0/460.7+0.7

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    S. Skinner
    EDM · 19/22 · .864
    -0.3
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium3/141.5-1.5
    Low0/390.3+0.3

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    99 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CGY
    44 shots
    5
    Final
    99 shots
    EDM
    55 shots
    4
    CGY attackEDM attack
    CGY EDM Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, EDM right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

    Ranked from the box score

    Three stars

    Points first
    Three stars · computed, not voted
    R. Nugent-Hopkins
    #93 · C · EDM
    1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:56 on ice
    C. McDavid
    #97 · C · EDM
    0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 26:21 on ice · +1
    L. Draisaitl
    #29 · C · EDM
    1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 24:40 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Oct 8
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:04 AMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

    The model projects an Oilers win. At 58% win probability, the expected score is a 3.5-3.0 Edmonton victory.

    Edmonton's edge runs through the underlying play: 52.2% 5v5 expected goals share against Calgary's 46.5%. The Corsi split (50.2% to 49.2%) tracks the same pattern—Edmonton controls the puck and shot volume, and their expected output reflects it. Zach Hyman anchors that offensive drive at 1.23 xG/60, a pace that has already yielded 14 goals and 13 assists with 13.0% shooting. Connor McDavid (25G 33A, 0.92 xG/60) amplifies the threat, and his 5 high-danger goals give Edmonton's scoring room behind Hyman's foundation.

    Calgary counters with Blake Coleman, whose 0.89 xG/60 has translated to 16 goals and 12 assists despite an 11.4% shooting rate—evidence of execution above expected value. His 2 high-danger goals and Matt Coronato's secondary scoring (10G 16A, 0.80 xG/60) form Calgary's best chance to stay close.

    Both teams are running cold in PDO: Calgary at 0.984, Edmonton at 0.981. Neither has shot below expectation for long without mean reversion. If Calgary's finishing improves to its underlying rate and Edmonton's stabilizes, the score tightens. If neither regresses, Edmonton's edge in shot quality likely holds.

    Players to Watch

    CGY

    • Blake Coleman — 0.89 xG/60, 16G 12A, 2 HD goals, 11.4% shooting
    • Matt Coronato — 0.80 xG/60, 10G 16A, 6.6% shooting

    EDM

    • Zach Hyman — 1.23 xG/60, 14G 13A, 1 HD goals, 13.0% shooting
    • Connor McDavid — 0.92 xG/60, 25G 33A, 5 HD goals, 13.7% shooting

    Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    EDM 58%
    58%
    EDM
    Model favorite
    42%
    58%
    CGY50EDM

    EDM by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CGY 3.0–3.5 EDM; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

    Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
    Season rates · 5v5

    Tale of the tape

    NHL stats API · our xG
    CGY← edge
    edge →EDM
    46.5%52.2%
    49.2%50.2%
    2.853.38
    3.283.10
    2.543.44
    3.123.23
    0.9840.981

    EDM holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 0.981) says CGY has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    CGY
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    EDM
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.984
    CGY PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.981
    EDM PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    TACTICALEDM

    Shutdown Assignment: Oilers

    Key matchup: Neutralize Blake Coleman (16G, 0.89 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Blake Coleman (16G, 0.89 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    TACTICALCGY

    Shutdown Assignment: Flames

    Key matchup: Neutralize Zach Hyman (14G, 1.23 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Zach Hyman (14G, 1.23 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    STRENGTHEDM

    Zach Hyman drives the Oilers offense

    Zach Hyman: 14G 13A, 1.23 xG/60, 1 high-danger goals.

    WARNINGCGY

    Exploitable minutes: Matt Coronato

    Matt Coronato is on ice for 3.06 xGA/60 and 58 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Matt Coronato's shifts with the top line.

    Where the edges live
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.2% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
    Regression watch
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.2% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    CGY
    Blake Coleman16G 12A
    0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.4% sh
    Matt Coronato10G 16A
    0.80 xG/60 · 0 HD · 6.6% sh
    EDM
    Zach Hyman14G 13A
    1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
    Connor McDavid25G 33A
    0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page