Backcheck
Recap · CGY at WPG

Jets hold off the Flames

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

By the ModelJul 11, 12:58 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CGY
Calgary Flames
3
Home
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.41Expected goals4.29
51% share for the better side
33Shot attempts (SOG)32
8High-danger chances4
63Corsi (all attempts)55
Score-adjusted: 55% / 45%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Flames dominated the underlying play—eight high-danger chances to four—yet the Jets escaped with a 5-3 win. E. Comrie and a lethal power play made the difference.

Winnipeg held 49% of shot attempts but squeezed more value from fewer chances. The Flames crashed the net effectively (nine rebound opportunities) without converting; the Jets created seven rebound chances and converted 2 power-play goals on 18 shots (1.44 xG), turning close underlying play into a decisive scoreline.

E. Comrie was the catalyst, stopping 1.4 goals above expected. His 0.909 save percentage in 30/33 saves stood in sharp contrast to D. Wolf's 0.871 (27/31)—the gap between escape and regret.

Three Stars

  • #44 J. Morrissey (WPG) — 3A in 26:13
  • #55 M. Scheifele (WPG) — 2A in 21:54
  • #13 G. Vilardi (WPG) — 1G, 1A in 18:56
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CGY2 / 8 · 1.98 xG
WPG1 / 4 · 1.24 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CGY0 / 15 · 1.74 xG
WPG4 / 23 · 2.58 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CGY1 / 40 · 0.69 xG
WPG0 / 28 · 0.48 xG

CGY went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.74 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CGY
3 G · 4.41 xG · -1.4
WPG
5 G · 4.29 xG · +0.7
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
D. WolfCGY
+0.3
E. ComrieWPG
+1.4

CGY finished -1.4 against expected, WPG +0.7 — E. Comrie (WPG) saved 1.4 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CGY
WRIST2/28
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP1/3
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/19
WPG
WRIST2/21
SLAP0/13
BACKHAND1/5
SNAP1/3
TIP IN1/2
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/10
CGY
WPG
Off the rush
3 G on 30 · 2.48 xG
4 G on 28 · 2.58 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 9 · 1.80 xG
0 G on 7 · 0.68 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 2-for-28, WPG 2-for-21. WPG scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 26:13 TOI · +3
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 21:54 TOI
G. Vilardi
#13 · C · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:56 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • E. Comrie (WPG) stopped 1.4 goals above expected.
  • WPG was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 28 rush chances.
  • CGY was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 30 rush chances.
  • WPG created 7 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CGY created 9 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • WPG power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 18 PP shots (1.44 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CGY at WPG · 8:00 PM ET

Flames at Jets: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 12:57 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
WPG
Model favorite
47%
53%
CGY50WPG

WPG by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.52.6 WPG; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

CGY← edge
edge →WPG
47.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
49.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.36xGF / 602.34
2.66xGA / 602.55
1.76Goals for / gm1.90
2.15Goals against / gm2.10
0.985PDO — luck, not skill0.998

WPG holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.985 vs 0.998) says WPG has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.5–2.6 goal spread with Winnipeg at 53% win probability. This is essentially a pick'em.

The Jets are the hotter team, posting a 7-3-0 record over their last ten games. Calgary has struggled, carrying a -24 goal differential into this one. That deficit matters, but the Flames' underlying shot quality at even strength tells a different story: their expected goal share sits at 47.0%, barely below Winnipeg's 48.0%, and their Corsi figures are identical at 49.0%. Where Calgary looks truly vulnerable is their PDO—a ratio of actual to expected goals—sitting at 0.985, well below Winnipeg's 0.998. A PDO that low signals poor puck luck; regression typically follows.

The Flames also face a rest disadvantage. Winnipeg arrives on three days off while Calgary skates in on just one, a gap that compounds an already uncertain goaltending picture. D. Wolf comes in on the back half of a back-to-back, raising the possibility of a tired starter.

Blake Coleman anchors Calgary's offense with a 0.89 xG per 60 minutes and carries 16 goals against 12 assists, with two high-danger conversions. Matt Coronato pairs effectively up front despite a 6.6% shooting rate, generating 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and 16 assists. For Winnipeg, Nino Niederreiter matches Coleman's expected production at 0.87 xG/60 while sitting at just 6 goals and 6 assists—his three high-danger finishes suggest his ice impact exceeds his point total. Kyle Connor is the cleaner finisher with 25 goals, 30 assists, and a consistent 13.0% shooting rate; his 0.83 xG/60 is efficient and sustainable.

The Jets' edge rests on rest, momentum, and the goaltending advantage. Calgary's path to victory depends on regression—the Flames' poor puck luck evening out—and their ability to exploit the underlying quality they generate. This genuinely goes either way.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters