Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater

Breakdown · STL at CGY

Blues hold off the Flames

FinalSat, Oct 11

The verdict · stolen

The Blues stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.30–3.91 and won anyway.

STL 4 · CGY 2

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:22 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

St. Louis stole this one. Calgary controlled the underlying metrics—expected goals 3.91 to 3.30, shot attempts at 51% of the total—yet lost 4–2. The difference: goaltending gulf and finish variance.

J. Hofer turned in the performance that decided the night. He saved 1.91 goals above expected, posting a 0.931 save percentage on 29 shots. D. Wolf, his counterpart, surrendered 0.70 more goals than anticipated, finishing at 0.857. Hofer's margin and Wolf's underperformance account for nearly the entire 2-goal final gap.

Calgary squandered 1.91 goals' worth of expected performance. They generated 5 high-danger chances and converted none. The Flames were efficient on the rush—2 goals on 32 chances—but their offense couldn't capitalize elsewhere. They crashed the net effectively, creating 3 rebound opportunities with no payoff.

St. Louis was nearly as profligate: 0 for 6 on high-danger chances. Yet they found their efficiency through the same rush game, scoring twice on 19 chances, a conversion rate that punished Calgary's mistakes. Pius Suter's tip-in from the slot (P3, 13:33) was the turning point.

The Flames will rue this as a squandered advantage in play quality. Calgary dominated possession and shot attempts, controlled the expected-goals share, and still left with nothing. For St. Louis, goaltending and opportunism conquered better process—exactly the recipe for stealing a game that the underlying numbers say should've gone the other way.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 11

STL

CGY

Blues hold off the Flames

Chances 3.3 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flames deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

3.30

CGY

3.91

46% of the chances54%

The board read STL 4, CGY 2. The chances read STL 3.3, CGY 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

STL

+0.7

goals above expected

STL3.30 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CGY3.91 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Flames left 1.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 14:49CGYM. CoronatoPP0–1
P2 12:41STLJ. Neighbours1–1
P2 14:25STLR. ThomasPP2–1
P2 14:57CGYM. Coronato2–2
P3 11:07STLJ. Neighbours3–2
P3 13:33STLP. Suter4–2

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

STL

35 shots

Final

84 shots

CGY

49 shots

STL CGY GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLCGY

0 / 6

1.40 xG

High danger

0 / 5

1.17 xG

4 / 14

1.56 xG

Medium

2 / 19

2.09 xG

0 / 37

0.34 xG

Low

0 / 42

0.65 xG

The Flames went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

J. Hofer

+1.9

STL · 27/29

D. Wolf

−0.7

CGY · 24/28

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blues hold off the Flames

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

14:49CGYM. Coronatopower play(J. Farabee, N. Kadri)0–1

2ndshots 12–14

12:41STLJ. Neighbours(R. Thomas, P. Buchnevich)1–1
14:25STLR. Thomaspower play(J. Snuggerud, J. Faulk)2–1
14:57CGYM. Coronato(K. Bahl)2–2

3rdshots 12–6

11:07STLJ. Neighbours(C. Parayko, C. Fowler)3–2
13:33STLP. Suter(T. Tucker, N. Walker)4–2

score reads STL–CGY

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.30

STL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.040

STL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

46.3%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.30Expected goals3.91

CGY 54% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal29

6High-danger chances5

57All attempts (Corsi)66

Adjusted for score: STL 47% · CGY 53%

Faceoffs · CGY won46%off44%neu32%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL0 / 6 · 1.40 xG

CGY0 / 5 · 1.17 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL4 / 14 · 1.56 xG

CGY2 / 19 · 2.09 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL0 / 37 · 0.34 xG

CGY0 / 42 · 0.65 xG

STL went 4-for-14 from medium danger on 1.56 expected goals — 2.4 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

4 G · 3.30 xG · +0.7

CGY

2 G · 3.91 xG · -1.9

012345

STL finished +0.7 against expected, CGY -1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

WRIST1/15

TIP IN2/5

SLAP0/7

SNAP0/2

BACKHAND1/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

POKE0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/22

CGY

WRIST2/27

TIP IN0/7

SLAP0/3

SNAP0/7

BACKHAND0/4

WRAP AROUND0/1

POKE0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/17

STL

CGY

Off the rush

2 G on 19

2.21 xG

2 G on 32

2.69 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.68 xG

0 G on 3

0.53 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 1-for-15, CGY 2-for-27. STL 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

J. Hofer

STL · 27/29 · .931

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.2+1.2

Medium2/192.1+0.1

Low0/420.7+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

D. Wolf

CGY · 24/28 · .857

-0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.4+1.4

Medium4/141.6-2.4

Low0/370.3+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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

35 shots

Final

84 shots

CGY

49 shots

STL CGY GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL left, CGY 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. Thomas

#18 · C · —

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:00 on ice · +2

M. Coronato

#27 · R · —

2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 18:27 on ice · +1

J. Neighbours

#63 · L · —

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 14:44 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 11

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:37 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

Even money. The model projects a 3.0–3.0 game with the Flames at 50% win probability. St. Louis and Calgary are matched in the underlying play that predicts outcomes: Blues 48.7% xG, Flames 46.5%, a two-point margin that vanishes in a single contest.

Shot volume tells a different story. Calgary leads 49.2% Corsi to St. Louis's 48.3%, driving possession but failing to translate it into higher-quality chances. Both teams are generating and suppressing at nearly identical rates.

The separation emerges in execution. Jimmy Snuggerud anchors St. Louis's attack—0.86 xG/60, 15 goals, 2 HD goals—converting at 11.9%, well above average. Dylan Holloway matches his pace at 0.82 xG/60 while shooting 10.8%. Blake Coleman powers Calgary with 16 goals on 0.89 xG/60, a rate-to-output gap suggesting positive regression; he's also banked 2 HD goals. Matt Coronato is undershooting at 6.6%, limiting his 0.80 xG/60 to just 10 goals.

St. Louis sits at a perfect 1.000 PDO—skill and luck aligned. Calgary's 0.984 is running cold, a predictable reversion point if underlying play sustains. The shutdown assignments are direct: Calgary must contain Snuggerud's elite volume; St. Louis must manage Coleman's 0.89 xG/60 and 2 HD goals.

Defensively, the liability is split. Snuggerud is on ice for 2.75 xGA/60 with 44 high-danger shots against him this season—St. Louis's defensive weak link, which Calgary will attack. Matt Coronato is Calgary's corresponding vulnerability.

Two teams separated by thousandths in underlying metrics and inches in scoring luck. The model saw even money. So should you.

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

CGY 50%

50%

CGY

Model favorite

50%

STL50CGY

CGY by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 3.0–3.0 CGY; 17% 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

STL← edge

edge →CGY

48.7%46.5%

48.3%49.2%

2.802.85

2.953.28

2.802.54

3.103.12

1.0000.984

STL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.984) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

STL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

CGY

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.984

CGY PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALCGY

Shutdown Assignment: Flames

Key matchup: Neutralize Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 0.86 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

TACTICALSTL

Shutdown Assignment: Blues

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

WARNINGSTL

Exploitable minutes: Jimmy Snuggerud

Jimmy Snuggerud is on ice for 2.75 xGA/60 and 44 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Jimmy Snuggerud's shifts with the top line.

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.

Regression watch

The Flames' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Flames' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A

0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh

Dylan Holloway13G 24A

0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page