Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater

Breakdown · CGY at PHI

Flames hold off the Flyers

FinalSun, Nov 2

CGYCalgary Flames2 PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1

The verdict · stolen

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

CGY 2 · PHI 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:26 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

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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 2

CGY

PHI

Flames hold off the Flyers

Chances 1.9 – 2.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Flames took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

CGY

1.91

PHI

2.19

47% of the chances53%

The board read CGY 2, PHI 1. The chances read CGY 1.9, PHI 2.2.

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

Luck check

CGY

+0.1

goals above expected

CGY1.91 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

PHI2.19 expected · 1 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

P2 02:15CGYJ. Huberdeau1–0
P3 07:06CGYJ. Huberdeau2–0
P3 14:20PHIT. Konecny2–1

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

Where the shots came from

CGY

30 shots

Final

62 shots

PHI

32 shots

CGY PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CGYPHI

0 / 2

0.61 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.77 xG

1 / 9

0.85 xG

Medium

0 / 9

0.90 xG

1 / 36

0.45 xG

Low

1 / 40

0.52 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

B+

D. Wolf

+1.2

CGY · 17/18

A. Kolosov

−0.1

PHI · 19/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Flames hold off the Flyers

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 10–3no goals

2ndshots 7–6

02:15CGYJ. Huberdeau(Y. Sharangovich, B. Pachal)1–0

3rdshots 4–9

07:06CGYJ. Huberdeau(M. Weegar, J. Hanley)2–0
14:20PHIT. Konecny(N. Cates)2–1

score reads CGY–PHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

1.91

CGY chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.023

CGY puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

47.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.91Expected goals2.19

PHI 53% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal18

2High-danger chances3

47All attempts (Corsi)52

Adjusted for score: CGY 45% · PHI 55%

Faceoffs · PHI won53%off47%neu43%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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

CGY finished +0.1 against expected, PHI -1.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

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

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. Wolf

CGY · 17/18 · .944

+1.2

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.8+0.8

Medium0/90.9+0.9

Low1/400.5-0.5

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

A. Kolosov

PHI · 19/21 · .905

-0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.6+0.6

Medium1/90.8-0.1

Low1/360.5-0.6

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

62 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CGY

30 shots

Final

62 shots

PHI

32 shots

CGY PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, PHI 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

J. Huberdeau

#10 · L · CGY

2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 18:27 on ice · +2

M. Weegar

#52 · D · CGY

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:59 on ice

J. Hanley

#44 · D · CGY

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:01 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Nov 2

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:24 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 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.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 55%

55%

PHI

Model favorite

45%

55%

CGY50PHI

PHI by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.3–2.6 PHI; 19% 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 →PHI

47.0%51.0%

49.0%48.0%

2.362.26

2.662.20

1.761.96

2.151.82

0.9851.008

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.008) says PHI 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 · 1d rest

PHI

6-3-1

+4 GD · 1d rest

0.985

CGY PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.

Regression watch

The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
D. Vladar is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
D. Cooley is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Flyers are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in 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

back-to-back1.000 last start

Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PHI

Expected in goal

D. Vladar

back-to-back.789 last start

Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page