Backcheck
Recap · WPG at CGY

Jets hold off the Flames

The Jets won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

By the ModelJul 11, 12:30 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
2
Home
CGY
Calgary Flames
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.30Expected goals3.27
50% share for the better side
27Shot attempts (SOG)33
4High-danger chances3
46Corsi (all attempts)72
Score-adjusted: 40% / 60%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Jets won 2-1 despite Calgary dominating shot volume: the Flames held 55% of shot attempts (33-27 on goal) while high-danger chances went 3-4. Expected goals nearly split even—3.27 Calgary, 3.30 Winnipeg. Yet one team finished, and one did not.

C. Hellebuyck's save percentage of 0.970 was decisive—2.3 goals saved above expectation. Calgary's problem was two-fold: execution and bad luck. The Flames underperformed their expected goals by 2.27, while Winnipeg underperformed by 1.30. That gap suggests Calgary wasted chances more than Winnipeg got unlucky.

Where the Jets separated themselves: shot quality. Winnipeg averaged 0.072 xG per attempt; Calgary averaged 0.045. On the rush, Winnipeg was lethal—two goals on 21 chances, a conversion that offset Calgary's rebound work (three opportunities, zero conversions).

Mark Scheifele's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 15:06) proved the difference.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG2 / 4 · 0.86 xG
CGY0 / 3 · 0.63 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG0 / 16 · 2.00 xG
CGY0 / 18 · 1.92 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG0 / 26 · 0.44 xG
CGY1 / 51 · 0.72 xG

WPG went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 2.00 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
2 G · 3.30 xG · -1.3
CGY
1 G · 3.27 xG · -2.3
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. HellebuyckWPG
+2.3
D. WolfCGY
+1.3

WPG finished -1.3 against expected, CGY -2.3 — C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 2.3 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
WRIST1/19
SLAP0/7
TIP IN1/3
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/12
CGY
WRIST0/29
SLAP1/6
TIP IN0/8
BACKHAND0/2
SNAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/24
WPG
CGY
Off the rush
2 G on 21 · 2.22 xG
0 G on 33 · 2.61 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5 · 0.81 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.30 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-19, CGY 0-for-29. WPG scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
N. Pionk
#4 · D · WPG
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 25:24 TOI
R. Andersson
#4 · D · CGY
1 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 25:18 TOI · +1
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:22 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • C. Hellebuyck (WPG) stopped 2.3 goals above expected.
  • WPG had the higher quality looks — 0.072 xG/shot vs 0.045.
  • WPG was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/4 on HD chances (50%).
  • WPG was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 21 rush chances.
  • CGY created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • WPG created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CGY underperformed xG by 2.3 — wasted quality chances.
  • C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 2.3 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · WPG at CGY · 9:30 PM ET

Jets at Flames: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJun 16, 3:13 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
CGY
Model favorite
49%
51%
WPG50CGY

CGY by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score WPG 2.52.6 CGY; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

WPG← edge
edge →CGY
48.0%5v5 xG%47.0%
49.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.34xGF / 602.36
2.55xGA / 602.66
1.90Goals for / gm1.76
2.10Goals against / gm2.15
0.998PDO — luck, not skill0.985

WPG holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.998 vs 0.985) says WPG has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model can barely choose between these teams: 2.5-2.6 expected goals against each other, with Calgary at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as analytical projections get.

Winnipeg is the hotter team on the standings (6-4-0 in their last 10), while Calgary has cratered, sitting -23 in goal differential over the same stretch. But the season-long 5v5 numbers are nearly identical—Winnipeg holds a 48.0% expected goals share to Calgary's 47.0%, and both teams post 49.0% Corsi. The real divergence is in luck: Winnipeg's PDO of 0.998 suggests efficient finish, while Calgary's 0.985 PDO indicates a team running cold and due for positive regression.

Winnipeg's offense rides Nino Niederreiter and Kyle Connor. Niederreiter carries 0.87 xG/60 with 6 goals and 6 assists, including 3 high-danger goals on 8.6% shooting. Connor's 25 goals and 30 assists include 2 high-danger goals on elite 13.0% shooting—the kind of efficiency that anchors playoff contenders. Calgary counters with Blake Coleman at 0.89 xG/60 (16 goals, 12 assists, 2 HD goals) and Matt Coronato at 0.80 xG/60 (10 goals, 16 assists). Coleman's output at the top line gives Calgary a credible threat.

Winnipeg's Colin Miller is a defensive liability. The wildcard is D. Wolf facing this game on a back-to-back, with potential for either a backup appearance or a visibly fatigued starter. That decision could tilt an otherwise balanced matchup.

Players to Watch

  • Nino Niederreiter (Winnipeg) — 0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting
  • Kyle Connor (Winnipeg) — 0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting
  • Blake Coleman (Calgary) — 0.89 xG/60, 16G 12A, 2 HD goals, 11.4% shooting
  • Matt Coronato (Calgary) — 0.80 xG/60, 10G 16A, 6.6% shooting

Data: MoneyPuck 5v5 models, NHL API

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters