Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
← Sat, Oct 18 · the slate
Breakdown · CGY at VGK

Golden Knights pull away from the Flames

FinalSat, Oct 18
CGYCalgary Flames1VGKVegas Golden Knights6
The verdict · earned

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

CGY 1 · VGK 6
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:04 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

Vegas won 6–1, but the underlying numbers tell a different story. Expected goals finished 3.44–2.95 in VGK's favor—essentially a coin flip. The 5-goal margin owes more to execution and bad luck than dominance.

VGK earned the edge in volume. They held 51% of shot attempts and 54% of expected goals, a respectable if unspectacular advantage. Where they separated was quality. VGK generated 5 high-danger chances to Calgary's 3, and converted at a brutal 40% rate in close. That ruthlessness defined the game far more than raw chance creation.

Goaltending swung this wildly. A. Hill (VGK) stopped 26 of 27 shots and saved 1.95 goals above expected—elite territory. But the real tale was D. Wolf (CGY), who surrendered 2.67 goals more than expected. He faced 19 shots and stopped 14. D. Cooley (CGY), pulled after one period, actually saved 2.4 goals above expected before Vegas ran away.

The turning point came early in the third, when Mark Stone fired from the doorstep at 2:37. Vegas was already ahead, but that goal crystallized the pattern: Vegas capitalized on marginal chances while Calgary let superior ones slip away.

J. Eichel orchestrated the offense with 4 assists in limited ice. M. Stone scored twice and added 2 more helpers in just over 13 minutes. M. Marner scored twice. Calgary's top talent created their expected goals, but the team couldn't finish—a gap that widened to 1.95 goals.

This is what elite finishing looks like: take a statistically close game, bury your chances, and let the scoreboard do the talking.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 18
CGY
1
VGK
6

Golden Knights pull away from the Flames

Chances 3.0 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
2.95
VGK
3.44
46% of the chances54%

The board read CGY 1, VGK 6. The chances read CGY 3.0, VGK 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
+2.6
goals above expected
VGK3.44 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY2.95 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Golden Knights scored 2.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:46VGKM. Marner0–1
  2. P1 03:42CGYJ. HuberdeauPP1–1
  3. P1 05:39VGKT. HertlPP1–2
  4. P1 15:03VGKM. Stone1–3
  5. P2 03:57VGKI. Barbashev1–4
  6. P2 19:06VGKM. MarnerPP1–5
  7. P3 02:37VGKM. StonePP1–6
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
42 shots
1
Final
80 shots
VGK
38 shots
6
CGY attackVGK attack
CGY VGK Goal
42
shots · 1 in
38
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYVGK
1 / 3
0.77 xG
High danger
2 / 5
1.27 xG
0 / 13
1.50 xG
Medium
4 / 15
1.78 xG
0 / 49
0.68 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.39 xG

The Golden Knights buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Cooley
+2.4
CGY · 8/9
A
A. Hill
+1.9
VGK · 26/27
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights pull away from 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 13–9
  1. 00:46VGKM. Marner(I. Barbashev)0–1
  2. 03:42CGYJ. Huberdeaupower play(N. Kadri, M. Weegar)1–1
  3. 05:39VGKT. Hertlpower play(M. Stone, J. Eichel)1–2
  4. 15:03VGKM. Stone(J. Eichel)1–3
2ndshots 4–10
  1. 03:57VGKI. Barbashev(K. Korczak, J. Lauzon)1–4
  2. 19:06VGKM. Marnerpower play(M. Stone, J. Eichel)1–5
3rdshots 10–9
  1. 02:37VGKM. Stonepower play(T. Hertl, J. Eichel)1–6

score reads CGY–VGK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.44
VGK chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.096
VGK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.95Expected goals3.44
VGK 54% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal28
3High-danger chances5
65All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: CGY 61% · VGK 39%
Faceoffs · VGK won62%off39%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CGY1 / 3 · 0.77 xG
VGK2 / 5 · 1.27 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CGY0 / 13 · 1.50 xG
VGK4 / 15 · 1.78 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CGY0 / 49 · 0.68 xG
VGK0 / 34 · 0.39 xG

VGK went 4-for-15 from medium danger on 1.78 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CGY
1 G · 2.95 xG · -1.9
VGK
6 G · 3.44 xG · +2.6
01234567

CGY finished -1.9 against expected, VGK +2.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CGY
WRIST1/27
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/2
SNAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/23
VGK
WRIST3/18
SLAP0/7
BACKHAND1/3
TIP IN1/5
SNAP1/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/16
CGY
VGK
Off the rush
0 G on 29
2.32 xG
5 G on 26
2.91 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 1
0.38 xG
1 G on 2
0.38 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 1-for-27, VGK 3-for-18. VGK scored 5 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. Cooley
CGY · 8/9 · .889
+2.4
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.3-0.7
Medium4/151.8-2.2
Low0/340.4+0.4

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 · 14/19 · .737
-1.6
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.3-0.7
Medium4/151.8-2.2
Low0/340.4+0.4

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. Hill
VGK · 26/27 · .963
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.8-0.2
Medium0/131.5+1.5
Low0/490.7+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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CGY
42 shots
1
Final
80 shots
VGK
38 shots
6
CGY attackVGK attack
CGY VGK Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, VGK 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
J. Eichel
#9 · C · VGK
0 G · 4 A · 3 SOG · 16:08 on ice · +2
M. Stone
#61 · R · VGK
2 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 13:12 on ice · +2
M. Marner
#93 · R · VGK
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 18:17 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 18
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 3:05 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 holds the edge. The model projects a 2.8–3.4 Golden Knights win with Vegas at 60% to take it, backed by superior underlying play.

The Golden Knights dominate territory. They post a 54.5% xG share at 5v5 against Calgary's 46.5%, and control Corsi at 52.3% to 49.2%. Vegas is making more chances and forcing the Flames into a reactive game.

Both teams are running cold on PDO — Vegas at 0.983 and Calgary at 0.984 — meaning their goal rates are tracking below their underlying shot quality. Positive regression favors whichever team breaks through first.

The shutdown matchup tilts Vegas's way. Blake Coleman is Calgary's primary threat at 0.89 xG/60 with 16 goals and 2 high-danger tallies, but his 11.4% shooting rate is elevated; the Golden Knights' assignment is containment, not just depth. On the flip side, Brandon Saad carries a 0.91 xG/60 for Vegas but has converted just 3 goals on 6 assists — a 4.1% shooting rate that underperforms his underlying shot quality. Flames defense stops Saad's finishing, and it stays vulnerable.

Matt Coronato is the game's softest defensive target. Calgary's winger is on ice for 3.06 xGA/60 and has absorbed 58 high-danger shots against this season. Vegas should hunt that matchup relentlessly.

Tomas Hertl anchors the Vegas attack on the other wing. He sits at 0.88 xG/60 with 5 goals and a team-leading 17 assists, holding a 4.3% shooting rate. Unlike Saad's underperformance, Hertl's production is tracking his chances, making him a true secondary driver.

Matt Coronato (0.80 xG/60, 10G 16A, 6.6% shooting) generates chances for Calgary and should see top power-play reps, but his defensive liability compounds Vegas's territorial edge.

The script: Vegas imposes pace and zone time, Coronato bleeds chances on the backcheck, and whichever team normalizes its shot conversion first wins the expected-goals war that's already been decided underneath.

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 60%
60%
VGK
Model favorite
40%
60%
CGY50VGK

VGK by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CGY 2.8–3.4 VGK; 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 →VGK
46.5%54.5%
49.2%52.3%
2.853.26
3.282.71
2.543.22
3.122.95
0.9840.983

VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 0.983) 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
VGK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.984
CGY PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.983
VGK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

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)

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)

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.

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.

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 Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.984 — 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 Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — 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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page