Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater

Breakdown · CGY at NSH

Predators hold off the Flames

FinalSat, Nov 1

CGYCalgary Flames2 NSHNashville Predators4

The verdict · stolen

The Predators stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.96–2.57 and won anyway.

CGY 2 · NSH 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:11 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

Nashville won 4-2 despite being outplayed at the underlying level. The Flames generated superior chances, finishing 2.96 to 2.57 in expected goals—a gap the scoreboard ignored.

Variance explains everything. The Predators overperformed their xG by 1.43 goals; the Flames underperformed theirs by 0.96. Goaltending split the margin: J. Saros stopped 0.96 goals above expected, keeping Nashville afloat, while D. Wolf let in 1.77 more than he should have in relief. When your backup fails that badly, a close game collapses.

Calgary created more dangerous chances (4 high-danger to 3) yet couldn't finish. The Flames out-attempted Nashville too, holding the Predators to 41% of shot attempts. On any neutral night, this is a Calgary win.

Nashville's transition game proved decisive. The Predators scored 3 goals on 26 rush chances—a conversion rate that expected-goals models miss. Filip Forsberg's backhander at 19:36 of the third (power play) proved the turning point, a breakdown in Calgary's defensive shape.

M. Bunting and M. Wood capitalized on limited opportunities: Bunting recorded 1G, 2A in 15:43; Wood scored in just 10:00. Both Predators pressed whenever Nashville found space in transition.

The Flames crashed the net effectively (4 rebound chances, 1 converted) but lacked the finish to overcome what was, in essence, a lucky loss.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 1

CGY

NSH

Predators hold off the Flames

Chances 3.0 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flames deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

CGY

2.96

NSH

2.57

53% of the chances47%

The board read CGY 2, NSH 4. The chances read CGY 3.0, NSH 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

NSH

+1.4

goals above expected

NSH2.57 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CGY2.96 expected · 2 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

P1 10:29NSHM. Bunting0–1
P1 11:18NSHM. Wood0–2
P1 14:17NSHJ. MarchessaultPP0–3
P3 04:39CGYJ. Huberdeau1–3
P3 11:57CGYJ. Farabee2–3
P3 19:36NSHF. ForsbergEN2–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

CGY

52 shots

Final

86 shots

NSH

34 shots

CGY NSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CGYNSH

0 / 4

0.99 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.74 xG

1 / 10

0.94 xG

Medium

2 / 12

1.24 xG

1 / 56

1.04 xG

Low

1 / 36

0.60 xG

The Flames went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A+

D. Cooley

+2.6

CGY · 12/12

B+

J. Saros

+1.0

NSH · 33/35

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Predators hold off 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 15–11

10:29NSHM. Bunting(S. Stastney, J. Barron)0–1
11:18NSHM. Wood(M. Bunting, N. Blankenburg)0–2
14:17NSHJ. Marchessaultpower play(M. Bunting, M. Wood)0–3

2ndshots 11–7no goals

3rdshots 9–6

04:39CGYJ. Huberdeau(J. Bean, M. Coronato)1–3
11:57CGYJ. Farabee(N. Kadri)2–3
19:36NSHF. Forsbergempty net2–4

score reads CGY–NSH

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.57

NSH chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.050

NSH puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

42.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.96Expected goals2.57

CGY 53% of the chance quality

35Shots on goal24

4High-danger chances3

70All attempts (Corsi)51

Adjusted for score: CGY 64% · NSH 36%

Faceoffs · NSH won35%off61%neu55%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CGY0 / 4 · 0.99 xG

NSH1 / 3 · 0.74 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CGY1 / 10 · 0.94 xG

NSH2 / 12 · 1.24 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CGY1 / 56 · 1.04 xG

NSH1 / 36 · 0.60 xG

CGY went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.99 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CGY

2 G · 2.96 xG · -1.0

NSH

4 G · 2.57 xG · +1.4

012345

CGY finished -1.0 against expected, NSH +1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CGY

WRIST2/28

SNAP0/7

SLAP0/8

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/18

NSH

WRIST2/18

SNAP0/6

SLAP0/3

TIP IN1/5

BACKHAND1/1

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/17

CGY

NSH

Off the rush

1 G on 27

1.68 xG

3 G on 26

1.71 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.49 xG

0 G on 1

0.09 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 2-for-28, NSH 2-for-18. NSH scored 3 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 · 12/12 · 1.000

+2.6

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.7-0.3

Medium2/121.2-0.8

Low1/360.6-0.4

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 · 8/11 · .727

-0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.7-0.3

Medium2/121.2-0.8

Low1/360.6-0.4

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

J. Saros

NSH · 33/35 · .943

+1.0

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/41.0+1.0

Medium1/100.9-0.1

Low1/561.0+0.0

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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CGY

52 shots

Final

86 shots

NSH

34 shots

CGY NSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, NSH 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. Bunting

#58 · L · NSH

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 15:43 on ice · +2

M. Wood

#71 · R · NSH

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 10:00 on ice · +1

F. Forsberg

#9 · L · NSH

1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:20 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 1

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:08 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 projects a CGY 2.5–2.7 NSH game with Nashville at 54% win probability—a pick'em.

Both teams are underwater. Calgary is -13 in goal differential over its last 10 games; Nashville at -12. Advanced metrics favor Nashville marginally: 49.0% xG% and 50.0% Corsi% versus Calgary's 47.0% and 49.0%, respectively. Calgary's PDO of 0.985, lower than Nashville's 0.992, signals the Flames are running cold and primed for regression.

Blake Coleman anchors Calgary's attack with 0.89 xG/60, 16 goals, 12 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and 11.4% shooting. Matt Coronato projects at 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and 16 assists; his 6.6% shooting rate suggests downside. He's also Calgary's defensive weak link. Neither team has scored on high-danger or rebound chances—both at 0%—a floor that limits upside.

Filip Forsberg carries Nashville's load: 0.80 xG/60, 23 goals, 17 assists, 4 high-danger goals, 13.6% shooting. Zachary L'Heureux (0.85 xG/60, 4G, 0A, 1 high-danger goal, 16.0% shooting) converts at an unsustainable rate. Jonathan Marchessault is Nashville's defensive liability.

Nashville's microscopic edge in advanced metrics evaporates against Calgary's regression window and recent parity.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NSH 54%

54%

NSH

Model favorite

46%

54%

CGY50NSH

NSH by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.5–2.7 NSH; 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 →NSH

47.0%49.0%

49.0%50.0%

2.362.48

2.662.58

1.761.84

2.152.21

0.9850.992

NSH holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.992) says NSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CGY

1-7-2

-13 GD · 2d rest

NSH

3-6-1

-12 GD · 2d rest

0.985

CGY PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.992

NSH 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.

Things to watch

The Predators are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
The Flames are underwater at -13 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

CGY

Expected in goal

D. Cooley

2 days rest.921 last start

Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NSH

Expected in goal

J. Saros

2 days rest.824 last start

Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 GSAx this season

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

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

NSH

Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A

0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh

Filip Forsberg23G 17A

0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page