Backcheck
Recap · CGY at NSH

Predators hold off the Flames

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

By the ModelJul 11, 2:11 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CGY
Calgary Flames
2
Home
NSH
Nashville Predators
4
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.96Expected goals2.57
53% share for the better side
35Shot attempts (SOG)24
4High-danger chances3
70Corsi (all attempts)51
Score-adjusted: 64% / 36%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
D. CooleyCGY
+1.3
D. WolfCGY
-1.8
J. SarosNSH
+1.0

CGY finished -1.0 against expected, NSH +1.4 — D. Wolf (CGY) allowed 1.8 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Bunting
#58 · L · NSH
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 15:43 TOI · +2
M. Wood
#71 · R · NSH
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 10:00 TOI · +1
F. Forsberg
#9 · L · NSH
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:20 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • D. Cooley (CGY) stopped 1.3 goals above expected.
  • D. Wolf (CGY) gave up 1.8 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • NSH was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • CGY created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • D. Cooley (CGY) saved 2.6 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CGY at NSH · 3:30 PM ET

Flames at Predators: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 2:08 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

54%
NSH
Model favorite
46%
54%
CGY50NSH

NSH by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.52.7 NSH; 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 →NSH
47.0%5v5 xG%49.0%
49.0%Corsi%50.0%
2.36xGF / 602.48
2.66xGA / 602.58
1.76Goals for / gm1.84
2.15Goals against / gm2.21
0.985PDO — luck, not skill0.992

NSH holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.985 vs 0.992) says NSH has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

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
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters