Backcheck
Recap · CGY at PHI

Flames hold off the Flyers

The Flames stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.91–2.19 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 2:26 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CGY
Calgary Flames
2
Home
PHI
Philadelphia Flyers
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

1.91Expected goals2.19
53% share for the better side
21Shot attempts (SOG)18
2High-danger chances3
47Corsi (all attempts)52
Score-adjusted: 45% / 55%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Calgary's 2-1 victory masked an essentially even game underneath. Expected goals split 2.19–1.91 in Calgary's favor—a 53–47 edge—while the Flyers held 46% of shot attempts (18–21 on goal). High-danger chances broke 3–2. Yet Philadelphia scored once on 1.91 xG, underperforming by 1.19.

D. Wolf made the difference. The Calgary goaltender made 17 of 18 saves for a 0.944 SV%, exceeding his expected save percentage by 1.19 goals—the exact shortfall the Flyers faced. A. Kolosov made 19 of 21 saves (0.905 SV%) in the loss.

The turning point arrived in the third period at 14:20, when Travis Konecny fired a wrist shot from the top of the circles. It was the moment Philadelphia needed, but Calgary survived.

J. Huberdeau carried the attack for Calgary with two goals in 18:27. M. Weegar (1 assist, 25:59) and J. Hanley (1 assist, 22:01) added to the effort.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CGY0 / 2 · 0.61 xG
PHI0 / 3 · 0.77 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CGY1 / 9 · 0.85 xG
PHI0 / 9 · 0.90 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CGY1 / 36 · 0.45 xG
PHI1 / 40 · 0.52 xG

PHI went 0-for-9 from medium danger on 0.90 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CGY
2 G · 1.91 xG · +0.1
PHI
1 G · 2.19 xG · -1.2
0123
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
D. WolfCGY
+1.2
A. KolosovPHI
-0.1

CGY finished +0.1 against expected, PHI -1.2 — D. Wolf (CGY) saved 1.2 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CGY
WRIST1/18
SNAP0/3
TIP IN1/4
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/17
PHI
WRIST1/24
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/20
CGY
PHI
Off the rush
1 G on 19 · 1.14 xG
0 G on 19 · 1.49 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0 · 0.00 xG
1 G on 2 · 0.29 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 1-for-18, PHI 1-for-24.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Huberdeau
#10 · L · CGY
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 18:27 TOI · +2
M. Weegar
#52 · D · CGY
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:59 TOI
J. Hanley
#44 · D · CGY
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:01 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • D. Wolf (CGY) stopped 1.2 goals above expected.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CGY at PHI · 7:00 PM ET

The Flyers are the model's lean over the Flames — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 11, 2:24 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

55%
PHI
Model favorite
45%
55%
CGY50PHI

PHI by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.32.6 PHI; 19% 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 →PHI
47.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
49.0%Corsi%48.0%
2.36xGF / 602.26
2.66xGA / 602.20
1.76Goals for / gm1.96
2.15Goals against / gm1.82
0.985PDO — luck, not skill1.008

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.985 vs 1.008) says PHI has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.3–2.6 CGY–PHI game with the Flyers at 55% win probability, and the underlying numbers justify the pick. Philadelphia owns the shot quality battle at 51.0% 5v5 expected goals percentage versus Calgary's 47.0%, suggesting the Flyers should sustain pressure despite nearly identical possession metrics (49.0% Corsi for Calgary, 48.0% for Philadelphia). The edge, then, is in shot creation, not puck movement.

Form tilts Philadelphia further ahead. The Flyers have gone 6-3-1 in their last ten games while the Flames sit underwater at minus-13 goal differential over the same stretch—a sharp divergence in traction.

The regression angle complicates Calgary's near-term outlook. The Flames' PDO of 0.985 means they're running below neutral, the kind of small-sample penalty that typically corrects. Philadelphia's PDO of 1.008 sits slightly warm, making the xG advantage all the more credible: they're not hiding behind lucky bounces.

Watch the goaltending situation. D. Vladar faces a back-to-back, opening the door to a backup start or a tired starter. D. Cooley is also on a back-to-back with the same exposure.

The Flames will lean on Blake Coleman (16 goals, 0.89 xG per 60 minutes, 2 high-danger goals) and Matt Coronato (10 goals, 0.80 xG per 60, 6.6% shooting percentage). Owen Tippett leads Philadelphia at 19 goals and 0.88 xG per 60 with 2 high-danger goals, while Christian Dvorak (12 goals, 0.81 xG per 60, 3 high-danger goals) operates as a secondary threat.

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
PHI
Owen Tippett19G 18A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.1% sh
Christian Dvorak12G 21A
0.81 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.2% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters