Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
← Tue, Oct 14 · the slate
Breakdown · VGK at CGY

Golden Knights run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Oct 14
VGKVegas Golden Knights4CGYCalgary Flames2
The verdict · earned

The Golden Knights earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

VGK 4 · CGY 2
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:42 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

Calgary held 49% of shot attempts (29–30 on goal), nearly matching Vegas's output. Yet the Golden Knights controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (4.29–2.80 xG)—and the final score (4–2) fell sharply in Vegas's favor. The difference was chance quality, not volume.

High-danger chances widened the gap further: Vegas 7, Calgary 3. The Flames underperformed their xG by 0.80 goals. Vegas converted their advantages off the rush, scoring 3 goals on 22 chances versus Calgary's 2 on 27. Tomas Hertl's wrist shot from the slot at 19:53 of the third sealed the lead.

Calgary crashed the net for 3 rebound opportunities but converted none—a symptom of perimeter play rather than net-front presence. Vegas split the net between A. Hill (8 shots, 0.800 SV%) and A. Schmid (19 shots, 1.000 SV%, +1.83 versus expected). D. Wolf played steadily for Calgary (26 saves on 29 shots, 0.897 SV%, +1.29 versus expected), but his workload reflected Calgary's disadvantage.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 14
VGK
4
CGY
2

Golden Knights run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.3 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VGK
4.29
CGY
2.80
61% of the chances40%

The board read VGK 4, CGY 2. The chances read VGK 4.3, CGY 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
−0.3
goals above expected
VGK4.29 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY2.80 expected · 2 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 07:32CGYM. Backlund0–1
  2. P1 12:10CGYB. Coleman0–2
  3. P2 10:00VGKJ. Eichel1–2
  4. P3 04:11VGKK. Korczak2–2
  5. P3 06:38VGKJ. Eichel3–2
  6. P3 19:53VGKT. HertlEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VGK
49 shots
4
Final
93 shots
CGY
44 shots
2
VGK attackCGY attack
VGK CGY Goal
49
shots · 4 in
44
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VGKCGY
2 / 7
2.36 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.67 xG
2 / 12
1.22 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.36 xG
0 / 50
0.71 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.76 xG

The Flames went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Schmid
+2.8
VGK · 19/19
B+
D. Wolf
+1.3
CGY · 26/29
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 8–10
  1. 07:32CGYM. Backlund(M. Weegar)0–1
  2. 12:10CGYB. Coleman0–2
2ndshots 12–11
  1. 10:00VGKJ. Eichel(M. Stone)1–2
3rdshots 10–8
  1. 04:11VGKK. Korczak(T. Hertl, M. Marner)2–2
  2. 06:38VGKJ. Eichel(I. Barbashev, J. Lauzon)3–2
  3. 19:53VGKT. Hertlempty net(M. Marner, W. Karlsson)4–2

score reads VGK–CGY

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.29
VGK chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.022
VGK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
55.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.29Expected goals2.80
VGK 61% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal29
7High-danger chances3
69All attempts (Corsi)55
Adjusted for score: VGK 59% · CGY 41%
Faceoffs · CGY won33%off53%neu44%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VGK2 / 7 · 2.36 xG
CGY0 / 3 · 0.67 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VGK2 / 12 · 1.22 xG
CGY2 / 12 · 1.36 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VGK0 / 50 · 0.71 xG
CGY0 / 40 · 0.76 xG

VGK went 2-for-12 from medium danger on 1.22 expected goals — 0.8 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VGK
4 G · 4.29 xG · -0.3
CGY
2 G · 2.80 xG · -0.8
012345

VGK finished -0.3 against expected, CGY -0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VGK
WRIST2/33
SNAP1/4
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/20
CGY
WRIST0/27
SNAP2/10
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/11
VGK
CGY
Off the rush
3 G on 22
2.75 xG
2 G on 27
2.02 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.22 xG
0 G on 3
0.47 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 2-for-33, CGY 0-for-27. VGK scored 3 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
A. Hill
VGK · 8/10 · .800
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium2/121.4-0.6
Low0/400.8+0.8

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

A. Schmid
VGK · 19/19 · 1.000
+2.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium2/121.4-0.6
Low0/400.8+0.8

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 · 26/29 · .897
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/72.4+0.4
Medium2/121.2-0.8
Low0/500.7+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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VGK
49 shots
4
Final
93 shots
CGY
44 shots
2
VGK attackCGY attack
VGK CGY Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK 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
M. Marner
#93 · R · —
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 21:54 on ice · +2
T. Hertl
#48 · C · —
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:31 on ice · +2
J. Eichel
#9 · C · —
2 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 17:44 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 14
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:32 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

Vegas projects to beat Calgary 3.3–2.9 with 55% win probability—an edge rooted in controlling play. The Golden Knights generate 54.5% expected goals against Calgary's 46.5%, a gap reflecting both volume and quality of scoring chances. Vegas also leads in territorial possession at 52.3% Corsi, dominating play in Calgary's end.

Both teams are buried under identical bad luck. Vegas's PDO sits at 0.983, Calgary's at 0.984—nearly identical, both running cold—meaning both clubs are getting fewer goals and saves than their actual rates predict. When Vegas's chances convert at their proper rate, the margin expands; when Calgary's defense normalizes, their deficit shrinks. The model is betting on Vegas, but PDO is a coiled spring compressed under both teams.

Vegas's offense runs on depth, not stars. Brandon Saad (3G, 6A) generates at 0.91 expected goals per 60 minutes—a solid complementary rate at 4.1% shooting. Tomas Hertl (5G, 17A) operates at 0.88 xG/60 at 4.3% shooting, converting at expected pace. That consistency across the middle six, rather than dependence on a single catalyst, is why the model favors Vegas; volume spreads across the roster.

Blake Coleman is Calgary's entire carrying case. With 16 goals on just 0.89 xG/60, he's shooting at 11.4%—far above what his underlying chances suggest. Matt Coronato (10G, 16A) sits at 0.80 xG/60, adding secondary volume, but Coleman is the engine, and hot engines cool.

Calgary's defensive liability is Rasmus Andersson. He's on ice for 2.49 expected goals against per 60 minutes and has faced 68 high-danger shot attempts. Paired with Vegas's possession edge, Andersson becomes a pressure point: high volume and chasing. The Flames' backend is where Vegas converts its structural advantage into actual goals.

Vegas owns the blueprint; Calgary owns Coleman's confidence. When both regress—and they will—Vegas's margin expands.

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

VGK 55%
55%
VGK
Model favorite
55%
45%
VGK50CGY

VGK by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VGK 3.3–2.9 CGY; 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
VGK← edge
edge →CGY
54.5%46.5%
52.3%49.2%
3.262.85
2.713.28
3.222.54
2.953.12
0.9830.984

VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 0.984) says CGY has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
VGK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
CGY
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.983
VGK 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 Brandon Saad (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Saad (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

TACTICALVGK

Shutdown Assignment: Golden Knights

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)

WARNINGVGK

Exploitable minutes: Rasmus Andersson

Rasmus Andersson is on ice for 2.49 xGA/60 and 68 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Rasmus Andersson'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.

Where the edges live
  • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.5% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
  • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.3% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.5% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
  • The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.3% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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