Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · CGY at OTT

Senators edge the Flames in a shootout

The verdict · earned

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

CGY 3 · OTT 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:08 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

Ottawa controlled this game convincingly on the underlying numbers. The Senators held 60% of expected goals (4.21–2.81), a 57% edge in shot attempts (38–29 on goal), and a 4–2 advantage in high-danger chances. Tim Stützle won it with a snap shot from the slot in the shootout.

This wasn't a shootout disguising a tight game—it was a dominant performance that needed the tiebreaker format. L. Ullmark allowed two low-danger goals, lapses that usually sink teams. But Ottawa was efficient enough to overcome them.

D. Cooley (CGY) limited the damage with an exceptional performance: 35 of 38 saves, 0.921 SV%, +1.21 versus expected. That's stopping more than a goal's worth of additional chances—precisely what prevented a wider defeat.

Calgary's power play supplied the only bright spot: 2 goals on 8 shots (0.56 xG). The Flames' rush efficiency was lethal—2 goals on 25 rush attempts—yet couldn't overcome the overall play.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Oct 30
CGY
3
OTT
4

Senators edge the Flames in a shootout

Chances 2.8 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
2.81
OTT
4.21
40% of the chances60%

The board read CGY 3, OTT 4. The chances read CGY 2.8, OTT 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−0.2
goals above expected
OTT4.21 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY2.81 expected · 3 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 05:51CGYY. SharangovichPP1–0
  2. P1 07:37OTTL. EllerSH1–1
  3. P1 15:53CGYM. CoronatoPP2–1
  4. P3 02:36OTTA. Zub2–2
  5. P3 08:16CGYN. Kadri3–2
  6. P3 17:11OTTJ. Sanderson3–3
  7. SO 00:00OTTD. BathersonPP3–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
36 shots
3
Final
93 shots
OTT
57 shots
5
CGY attackOTT attack
CGY OTT Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

36
shots · 3 in
57
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYOTT
0 / 2
0.55 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.98 xG
2 / 14
1.79 xG
Medium
1 / 22
2.36 xG
1 / 39
0.48 xG
Low
2 / 38
0.87 xG

High-danger looks: CGY 0 of 2, OTT 0 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Cooley
+1.2
CGY · 35/38
C
L. Ullmark
−0.2
OTT · 26/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators edge the Flames in a shootout

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 11–13
  1. 05:51CGYY. Sharangovichpower play(J. Farabee, M. Weegar)1–0
  2. 07:37OTTL. Ellershorthanded(S. Pinto, T. Chabot)1–1
  3. 15:53CGYM. Coronatopower play(M. Frost, R. Andersson)2–1
2ndshots 9–10no goals
    3rdshots 8–8
    1. 02:36OTTA. Zub(L. Eller, D. Batherson)2–2
    2. 08:16CGYN. Kadri(J. Huberdeau)3–2
    3. 17:11OTTJ. Sanderson(T. Stützle, J. Spence)3–3
    OTshots 1–7no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00OTTD. Bathersonpower play3–3
      2. 00:00OTTT. Stützlepower play3–3

      score reads CGY–OTT

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      4.21
      OTT chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.2
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      0.992
      OTT puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      53.8%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.81Expected goals4.21
      OTT 60% of the chance quality
      29Shots on goal38
      2High-danger chances4
      55All attempts (Corsi)64
      Adjusted for score: CGY 44% · OTT 56%
      Faceoffs · OTT won63%off71%neu63%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      CGY0 / 2 · 0.55 xG
      OTT0 / 4 · 0.98 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      CGY2 / 14 · 1.79 xG
      OTT1 / 22 · 2.36 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      CGY1 / 39 · 0.48 xG
      OTT2 / 38 · 0.87 xG

      OTT went 1-for-22 from medium danger on 2.36 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      CGY
      3 G · 2.81 xG · +0.2
      OTT
      4 G · 4.21 xG · -0.2
      012345

      CGY finished +0.2 against expected, OTT -0.2.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      CGY
      WRIST2/17
      SLAP0/4
      TIP IN0/4
      SNAP1/6
      BACKHAND0/2
      DEFLECTED0/1
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      BAT0/0
      OTHER0/21
      OTT
      WRIST3/31
      SLAP0/8
      TIP IN0/6
      SNAP0/4
      BACKHAND0/3
      DEFLECTED0/1
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      BAT0/1
      OTHER0/9
      CGY
      OTT
      Off the rush
      2 G on 25
      2.55 xG
      0 G on 38
      3.69 xG
      Off rebounds
      1 G on 2
      0.15 xG
      1 G on 2
      0.11 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 2-for-17, OTT 3-for-31. CGY 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
      D. Cooley
      CGY · 35/38 · .921
      +1.2
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/41.0+1.0
      Medium1/222.4+1.4
      Low2/380.9-1.1

      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

      L. Ullmark
      OTT · 26/29 · .897
      -0.2
      saved above expected
      C
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/20.6+0.6
      Medium2/141.8-0.2
      Low1/390.5-0.5

      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
      CGY
      36 shots
      3
      Final
      93 shots
      OTT
      57 shots
      5
      CGY attackOTT attack
      CGY OTT Goal

      Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

      Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, OTT 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
      L. Eller
      #89 · C · OTT
      1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 12:16 on ice · +2
      J. Sanderson
      #85 · D · OTT
      1 G · 0 A · 8 SOG · 28:50 on ice · +1
      R. Andersson
      #4 · D · CGY
      0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 27:32 on ice · -1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Thu, Oct 30
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:48 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 model sees the Senators as clear favorites here: a projected 2.2–2.8 goal game with Ottawa at 59% win probability. The underlying case is straightforward—the Senators own the possession game.

      Through 5v5 play, Ottawa controls expected goals at 56.0% to Calgary's 47.0%. That's the predictive layer. The Senators also command territorial dominance in Corsi, where they sit at 53.0% against Calgary's 49.0%, meaning they consistently drive play into enemy ice. This isn't a fluke; it's a structural advantage.

      Ottawa's recent form backs the model. The Senators are 4-5-1 in their last 10, a points-pace that outpaces their opponent. Calgary, meanwhile, sits at -16 goal differential over the same stretch—a sign of teams playing worse than the score initially suggests.

      The wrinkle: Calgary's PDO of 0.985 sits below league neutral. That's a team running cold on both the shooting and goaltending sides, which typically signals mean reversion. Ottawa's 0.993 PDO sits closer to center, offering less regression room.

      For Calgary, Blake Coleman (0.89 xG/60, 16 goals, 12 assists, 2 high-danger chances, 11.4% shooting) remains the engine. Matt Coronato (0.80 xG/60, 10 goals, 16 assists) rounds out the two-headed attack, though his 6.6% shooting rate leaves upside if regression favors him. Defensively, Calgary's high-danger and rebound rates both sit at 0%, which reads less as disciplined structure and more as variance—teams can't sustain a complete shutdown forever.

      Brady Tkachuk (1.19 xG/60, 11 goals, 20 assists, 2 high-danger chances, 7.5% shooting) leads Ottawa's charge. He's not just a volume driver; that 1.19 xG/60 mark signals genuine shot quality. Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60, 13 goals, 15 assists) offers secondary punch. Like Calgary, Ottawa's high-danger and rebound rates hold at 0%, a sign that both teams are outperforming natural rates.

      The matchups turn on structure. Calgary needs to disrupt Ottawa's puck movement and force Tkachuk into lower-value attempts. Ottawa, conversely, should probe Calgary's Matt Coronato on the backcheck—he represents a weak link. On Ottawa's end, Nick Jensen flags as the defensive liability.

      This is a numbers-backed lean on Ottawa—not because they're guaranteed to win, but because their underlying edge is real and Calgary's recent results haven't caught up to their puck luck ceiling.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      OTT 59%
      59%
      OTT
      Model favorite
      41%
      59%
      CGY50OTT

      OTT by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CGY 2.2–2.8 OTT; 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
      CGY← edge
      edge →OTT
      47.0%56.0%
      49.0%53.0%
      2.362.66
      2.662.12
      1.762.18
      2.151.99
      0.9850.993

      OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      CGY
      1-8-1
      -16 GD · 2d rest
      OTT
      4-5-1
      -4 GD · 1d rest
      0.985
      CGY PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.993
      OTT PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
      • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
      • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • The Senators are the hotter team by points pace (4-5-1 in their last 10).
      • The Flames are underwater at -16 goal differential over their last 10.
      • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — 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
      OTT
      Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
      1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
      Dylan Cozens13G 15A
      1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next