Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
Breakdown · CBJ at CGY

D. Wolf stands tall as the Flames edge the Blue Jackets

The verdict · stolen

The Flames stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.66–3.40 and won anyway.

CBJ 1 · CGY 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:41 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 won 5–1 but controlled only 42% of expected goals—a reversal so extreme it reads as a theft. The Blue Jackets dominated the underlying play, holding 58% of xG at 5v5 and earning twice as many high-danger chances (7–4), yet walked away with one goal. This was goaltending and finishing executing perfectly in concert.

D. Wolf made 42 of 43 saves (0.977 SV%) and stopped 3.7 goals above expected—a performance that converted Calgary's narrow edge in shot quality (0.076 xG per shot to Columbus's 0.055) into a landslide. J. Greaves faced a heavier workload in a losing effort, stopping 21 of 25 but falling 0.60 goals short of expected.

The stat that broke: Columbus's inability to finish. The Blue Jackets went 0 for 7 on high-danger chances, squandering opportunities that should have compressed the margin. Calgary, meanwhile, scored twice from low-danger spots—exactly the kind of conversion rate that requires the opposing goalie to have an off night. Wolf did not.

Off the rush, Calgary was lethal: three goals on twenty attempts. This wasn't grinding—it was speed and precision. R. Andersson and J. Hanley each logged twenty-plus minutes and an assist, steadying the top line. N. Kadri scored once in 20:13, providing secondary punch. The goal-scoring was distributed enough that Columbus had no single defensive assignment to fix the bleeding.

The turning point arrived early: Mikael Backlund's wrist shot from the point at 19:11 in the third period set the tone for a team that would pile on. Once Calgary found separation, Columbus's dominant play on the scoreboard became irrelevant.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 5
CBJ
1
CGY
5

D. Wolf stands tall as the Flames edge the Blue Jackets

Chances 4.7 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
4.66
CGY
3.40
58% of the chances42%

The board read CBJ 1, CGY 5. The chances read CBJ 4.7, CGY 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
+1.6
goals above expected
CGY3.40 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ4.66 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flames scored 1.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:56CGYM. Frost0–1
  2. P1 01:32CGYB. Coleman0–2
  3. P1 06:57CBJK. MarchenkoSH1–2
  4. P2 07:47CGYN. Kadri1–3
  5. P2 08:24CGYA. Klapka1–4
  6. P3 19:11CGYM. BacklundEN1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
61 shots
1
Final
95 shots
CGY
34 shots
5
CBJ attackCGY attack
CBJ CGY Goal
61
shots · 1 in
34
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJCGY
0 / 7
1.53 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.31 xG
1 / 18
2.17 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.51 xG
0 / 60
0.96 xG
Low
2 / 28
0.58 xG

The Blue Jackets went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Wolf
+3.7
CGY · 42/43
D
J. Greaves
−0.6
CBJ · 21/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

D. Wolf stands tall as the Flames edge the Blue Jackets

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 10–13
  1. 00:56CGYM. Frost(J. Huberdeau, M. Coronato)0–1
  2. 01:32CGYB. Coleman(J. Hanley, S. Honzek)0–2
  3. 06:57CBJK. Marchenkoshorthanded(B. Jenner)1–2
2ndshots 11–7
  1. 07:47CGYN. Kadri(J. Farabee, R. Andersson)1–3
  2. 08:24CGYA. Klapka(Y. Kuznetsov)1–4
3rdshots 22–6
  1. 19:11CGYM. Backlundempty net1–5

score reads CBJ–CGY

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.40
CGY chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.099
CGY puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
34.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.66Expected goals3.40
CBJ 58% of the chance quality
43Shots on goal26
7High-danger chances4
85All attempts (Corsi)45
Adjusted for score: CBJ 71% · CGY 29%
Faceoffs · CGY won16%off40%neu64%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CBJ0 / 7 · 1.53 xG
CGY1 / 4 · 1.31 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CBJ1 / 18 · 2.17 xG
CGY2 / 13 · 1.51 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CBJ0 / 60 · 0.96 xG
CGY2 / 28 · 0.58 xG

CBJ went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.53 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CBJ
1 G · 4.66 xG · -3.7
CGY
5 G · 3.40 xG · +1.6
0123456

CBJ finished -3.7 against expected, CGY +1.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CBJ
WRIST1/38
TIP IN0/8
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/6
SNAP0/4
OTHER0/24
CGY
WRIST3/23
TIP IN1/5
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/2
SNAP1/1
OTHER0/11
CBJ
CGY
Off the rush
1 G on 37
3.44 xG
3 G on 20
2.01 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.51 xG
0 G on 3
0.42 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 1-for-38, CGY 3-for-23. CGY 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
J. Greaves
CBJ · 21/25 · .840
-0.6
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.3+0.3
Medium2/131.5-0.5
Low2/280.6-1.4

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 · 42/43 · .977
+3.7
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.5+1.5
Medium1/182.2+1.2
Low0/601.0+1.0

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

95 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CBJ
61 shots
1
Final
95 shots
CGY
34 shots
5
CBJ attackCGY attack
CBJ CGY Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ left, CGY 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
R. Andersson
#4 · D · CGY
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:29 on ice · +2
J. Hanley
#44 · D · CGY
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:16 on ice · +1
N. Kadri
#91 · C · CGY
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:13 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Nov 5
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:40 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 projection model frames this as a 2.6–2.5 game with Columbus at 52% to win—as close to a statistical coin flip as the sport offers.

Columbus owns the underlying play. The Blue Jackets hold a 52.0% expected goals share at 5v5 against Calgary's 47.0%, and they're out-shooting the Flames 51.0% to 49.0% in Corsi. But recent form inverts the picture. Columbus has gone 6–4–0 over their last 10 games while Calgary has collapsed to -10 goal differential in the same stretch. The Flames are running cold.

That matters less if you believe in mean reversion. Calgary's PDO of 0.985 indicates the Flames are underperforming their underlying luck—positive regression is likely coming. Columbus sits at 1.003, suggesting their hot streak reflects actual underlying skill rather than variance. The Blue Jackets' edge is real but marginal.

The key performers amplify this split. Boone Jenner anchors Columbus with 0.98 expected goals per 60, 11 goals, and 21 assists, though a 9.6% shooting rate leaves limited upside. Mathieu Olivier is leaner at 0.89 xG/60 but has 12 goals on 13.3% shooting—dangerous when hot. Blake Coleman leads Calgary at 0.89 xG/60 with 16 goals, sustained by 11.4% shooting. Matt Coronato is the wild card: 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and 16 assists, but his 6.6% shooting rate hints at correction ahead.

Conor Garland represents Columbus's defensive vulnerability; Coronato is Calgary's equivalent.

Two evenly matched teams split between underlying advantage and momentum. Columbus has the edge, but only marginally. Expect a tight game.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 52%
52%
CBJ
Model favorite
52%
48%
CBJ50CGY

CBJ by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.6–2.5 CGY; 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
CBJ← edge
edge →CGY
52.0%47.0%
51.0%49.0%
2.632.36
2.432.66
2.121.76
1.982.15
1.0030.985

CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.985) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CBJ
6-4-0
+2 GD · 3d rest
CGY
2-6-2
-10 GD · 2d rest
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.985
CGY PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • The Blue Jackets are the hotter team by points pace (6-4-0 in their last 10).
  • The Flames are underwater at -10 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
CBJ
Expected in goal
E. Merzlikins
3 days rest.923 last start
Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CGY
Expected in goal
D. Wolf
2 days rest.944 last start
Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 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
CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next