Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
← Wed, Oct 22 · the slate
Breakdown · MTL at CGY

Canadiens edge the Flames in overtime

Final / OTWed, Oct 22
MTLMontreal Canadiens2CGYCalgary Flames1
The verdict · earned

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

MTL 2 · CGY 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:43 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 Flames owned the volume—57 percent of shot attempts—but the quality wasn't there. Montreal's J. Dobes was perfect on high-danger chances, stopping all eight, and he finished with 36 saves on 37 shots at a 0.973 save percentage, 2.36 goals better than expected.

Calgary created looks you'd expect from a 37-shot attack, except they didn't. The 3.36 expected goals came at just 0.045 per shot, a third the efficiency of Montreal's 0.077 rate. When the Flames did find premium chances, they couldn't finish: 0 for 8 on high-danger opportunities. That's the kind of shooting that doesn't repeat.

The Canadiens underperformed their 3.70 xG by 1.70 goals, while Calgary underperformed theirs by 2.36. The Flames' miss was starker: they dominated possession, created decent volume, and got nothing. Montreal's miss was absorbed by a goaltender having one of those nights.

At 1:00 of overtime, M. Matheson beat D. Wolf cleanly from the slot. Montreal converted on the rush—2 goals on 26 chances—while Calgary crashed the net for nothing, 5 rebound opportunities yielding zero. The gap between expected and actual got wide enough to matter: Montreal's better-quality shots and J. Dobes's flawless high-danger performance proved better than Calgary's volume.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 22
MTL
2
CGY
1

Canadiens edge the Flames in overtime

Chances 3.7 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Canadiens took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
3.70
CGY
3.36
52% of the chances48%

The board read MTL 2, CGY 1. The chances read MTL 3.7, CGY 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
−1.7
goals above expected
MTL3.70 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY3.36 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flames left 2.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 17:09MTLZ. BolducPP1–0
  2. P3 05:56CGYA. Klapka1–1
  3. OT 01:00MTLM. Matheson2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
35 shots
2
Final
84 shots
CGY
49 shots
1
MTL attackCGY attack
MTL CGY Goal
35
shots · 2 in
49
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLCGY
1 / 7
1.85 xG
High danger
0 / 8
1.96 xG
1 / 12
1.41 xG
Medium
1 / 8
0.70 xG
0 / 29
0.44 xG
Low
0 / 59
0.70 xG

The Flames went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Dobes
+2.4
MTL · 36/37
A
D. Wolf
+1.7
CGY · 26/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens edge the Flames in overtime

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 10–9
  1. 17:09MTLZ. Bolducpower play(N. Suzuki, L. Hutson)1–0
2ndshots 9–18no goals
    3rdshots 8–10
    1. 05:56CGYA. Klapka(M. Frost)1–1
    OTshots 1–0
    1. 01:00MTLM. Matheson(I. Demidov, A. Newhook)2–1

    score reads MTL–CGY

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.70
    MTL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.7
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.028
    MTL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    39.0%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.70Expected goals3.36
    MTL 52% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal37
    7High-danger chances8
    48All attempts (Corsi)75
    Adjusted for score: MTL 37% · CGY 63%
    Faceoffs · CGY won67%off56%neu32%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MTL1 / 7 · 1.85 xG
    CGY0 / 8 · 1.96 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MTL1 / 12 · 1.41 xG
    CGY1 / 8 · 0.70 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MTL0 / 29 · 0.44 xG
    CGY0 / 59 · 0.70 xG

    CGY went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.96 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MTL
    2 G · 3.70 xG · -1.7
    CGY
    1 G · 3.36 xG · -2.4
    01234

    MTL finished -1.7 against expected, CGY -2.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MTL
    WRIST0/22
    SNAP2/8
    SLAP0/1
    TIP IN0/2
    POKE0/1
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/13
    CGY
    WRIST1/26
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/9
    TIP IN0/3
    POKE0/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/26
    MTL
    CGY
    Off the rush
    2 G on 26
    2.99 xG
    1 G on 24
    1.77 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.51 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.98 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 0-for-22, CGY 1-for-26. MTL 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. Dobes
    MTL · 36/37 · .973
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/82.0+2.0
    Medium1/80.7-0.3
    Low0/590.7+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 · 26/28 · .929
    +1.7
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.9+0.8
    Medium1/121.4+0.4
    Low0/290.4+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

    84 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MTL
    35 shots
    2
    Final
    84 shots
    CGY
    49 shots
    1
    MTL attackCGY attack
    MTL CGY Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL 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. Matheson
    #8 · D · MTL
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 25:26 on ice · +1
    L. Hutson
    #48 · D · MTL
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:23 on ice
    N. Suzuki
    #14 · C · MTL
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:05 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Oct 22
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:42 PMEdited 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 models can't pick a winner: Montreal projects at 2.5–2.6 goals scored, Calgary at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as the numbers allow.

    Montreal enters hotter. They've won seven of their last ten (7-3-0). Calgary is underwater at -22 goal differential over the same stretch. The underlying 5v5 metrics barely separate them—Montreal's 48.0% xG% edges Calgary's 47.0%, while both sit at exactly 49.0% Corsi%. The real difference lies in variance.

    Calgary's PDO of 0.985 is running cold and primed for positive regression. Montreal's 1.018 is running hot and headed the other way. That's the leverage point: one team's luck turns, the other's runs out.

    D. Wolf is on a back-to-back. Watch whether Calgary starts him fatigued or dips to the backup.

    Montreal's offense runs through Cole Caufield, who carries 0.97 xG/60 and 33 goals at a sharp 20.0% shooting rate. Oliver Kapanen supports him at 0.83 xG/60, 19 goals, and 17.8% shooting—enough production to worry Calgary if left unchecked. Calgary counters with Blake Coleman at 0.89 xG/60 and 16 goals, and Matt Coronato further back at 0.80 xG/60 and 10 goals at a 6.6% shooting rate.

    Both offenses carry an odd fingerprint: zero high-danger goals, zero rebound goals. Montreal leans entirely on clean looks; Calgary has the same constraint. Mike Matheson wears the defensive liability tag for Montreal, while Coronato carries it for Calgary.

    The PDO gap and the form gap are real, but they offset each other. Neither team can claim a genuine edge.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CGY 51%
    51%
    CGY
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    MTL50CGY

    CGY by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MTL 2.5–2.6 CGY; 18% 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
    MTL← edge
    edge →CGY
    48.0%47.0%
    49.0%49.0%
    2.412.36
    2.622.66
    2.241.76
    1.962.15
    1.0180.985

    MTL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 0.985) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    MTL
    7-3-0
    +10 GD · 2d rest
    CGY
    2-7-1
    -22 GD · 1d rest
    1.018
    MTL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.985
    CGY PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Canadiens are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
    • The Flames are underwater at -22 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    MTL
    Expected in goal
    J. Dobes
    2 days rest.938 last start
    Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    CGY
    Expected in goal
    D. Wolf
    back-to-back.926 last start
    Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 GSAx this season
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    MTL
    Cole Caufield33G 16A
    0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
    Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
    0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% 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