Breakdown · CHI at CGY

Blackhawks shut out the Flames, 4-0

FinalFri, Nov 7

CHIChicago Blackhawks4 CGYCalgary Flames0

The verdict · stolen

The Blackhawks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.16–2.97 and won anyway.

CHI 4 · CGY 0

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:00 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

The Blackhawks shut out the Flames 4-0 on a night when every shot-quality metric said Calgary should have won. The Flames controlled 58% of expected goals at 5v5, held 55% of shot attempts (33–27), and generated a 4–3 edge in high-danger chances. Yet they scored zero. S. Knight posted a 1.000 SV% on 33 saves, stopping 2.97 goals above expected. This was theft.

Connor Bedard's wrist shot from the doorstep at 18:01 of the third period was the turning point. C. Bedard finished with 1G and 3A in 21:32. T. Bertuzzi added 2G in 19:58. A. Burakovsky contributed 1G and 1A in 19:09.

The variance magnitude is rare. The Flames underperformed their expected goals by 2.97, leaving the full value of their 2.97 xG on the ice. The Blackhawks outperformed theirs by 1.84, converting at a rate their 2.16 xG could not predict. Chicago was lethal off the rush, scoring 4 times on 22 chances. Both teams created 3 rebound opportunities; neither capitalized.

D. Wolf gave up 1.84 goals above expected. The damage compounded: Chicago finished where Calgary could not.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 7

CHI

CGY

Blackhawks shut out the Flames, 4-0

Chances 2.2 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flames deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

2.16

CGY

2.97

42% of the chances58%

The board read CHI 4, CGY 0. The chances read CHI 2.2, CGY 3.0.

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

Luck check

CHI

+1.8

goals above expected

CHI2.16 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CGY2.97 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blackhawks scored 1.8 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 12:32CHIT. BertuzziPP1–0
P3 01:11CHIT. Bertuzzi2–0
P3 07:56CHIA. Burakovsky3–0
P3 18:01CHIC. Bedard4–0

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

Where the shots came from

CHI

34 shots

Final

80 shots

CGY

46 shots

CHI CGY GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 0 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHICGY

1 / 3

0.90 xG

High danger

0 / 4

0.98 xG

3 / 8

0.73 xG

Medium

0 / 15

1.47 xG

0 / 36

0.54 xG

Low

0 / 37

0.52 xG

The Flames went 0 for 4 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

S. Knight

+3.0

CHI · 33/33

D. Wolf

−1.8

CGY · 23/27

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blackhawks shut out the Flames, 4-0

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 10–11

12:32CHIT. Bertuzzipower play(C. Bedard, A. Levshunov)1–0

2ndshots 7–11no goals

3rdshots 10–11

01:11CHIT. Bertuzzi(C. Bedard, A. Burakovsky)2–0
07:56CHIA. Burakovsky(C. Bedard)3–0
18:01CHIC. Bedard4–0

score reads CHI–CGY

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.16

CHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.8

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.085

CHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

45.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.16Expected goals2.97

CGY 58% of the chance quality

27Shots on goal33

3High-danger chances4

47All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: CHI 41% · CGY 59%

Faceoffs · CGY won68%off64%neu48%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI1 / 3 · 0.90 xG

CGY0 / 4 · 0.98 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI3 / 8 · 0.73 xG

CGY0 / 15 · 1.47 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI0 / 36 · 0.54 xG

CGY0 / 37 · 0.52 xG

CHI went 3-for-8 from medium danger on 0.73 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

4 G · 2.16 xG · +1.8

CGY

0 G · 2.97 xG · -3.0

012345

CHI finished +1.8 against expected, CGY -3.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

WRIST2/25

SNAP1/4

SLAP0/2

TIP IN1/3

BACKHAND0/0

POKE0/0

OTHER0/13

CGY

WRIST0/31

SNAP0/3

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/4

POKE0/1

OTHER0/10

CHI

CGY

Off the rush

4 G on 22

1.67 xG

0 G on 26

1.88 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.39 xG

0 G on 3

0.45 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 2-for-25, CGY 0-for-31. CHI scored 4 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

S. Knight

CHI · 33/33 · 1.000

+3.0

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/41.0+1.0

Medium0/151.5+1.5

Low0/370.5+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

D. Wolf

CGY · 23/27 · .852

-1.8

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.9-0.1

Medium3/80.7-2.3

Low0/360.5+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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

34 shots

Final

80 shots

CGY

46 shots

CHI CGY GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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

C. Bedard

#98 · C · CHI

1 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 21:32 on ice · +3

T. Bertuzzi

#59 · L · CHI

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:58 on ice · +3

A. Burakovsky

#28 · L · CHI

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:09 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Nov 7

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:59 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

Calgary's underlying play gives the model a clear lean here. The Flames control 5v5 at 47.0% expected goals to Chicago's 42.0%, translating to a 56% win projection and a 2.4-2.8 goal differential. But the real edge sits deeper — PDO regression.

The Flames are running cold at 0.985 PDO, finishing below what their quality of chance dictates. That's not bad luck to complain about; it's predictable mean reversion waiting to happen. When regression normalizes, the gap widens.

Chicago's offensive engine turns on Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard. Bertuzzi runs 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals and 7 high-danger goals. Bedard posts 0.82 xG/60, 17 goals, and an 11.8% shooting rate — that efficiency lag against his volume suggests imminent positive variance. Calgary counters with Blake Coleman (0.89 xG/60, 16G, 11.4% shooting) and Matt Coronato (0.80 xG/60, 10G, 6.6% shooting). Coronato's shooting efficiency appears suppressed relative to his offensive role, marking him as a potential breakout if usage expands.

Defensively, Chicago exposes Anton Frondell in transition. Coronato operates as Calgary's inverse — an offensive talent with defensive liabilities that complicate matchup strategy.

Goaltending adds a fatigue variable. Both D. Wolf and S. Knight are on back-to-backs, inviting either starter to dip or cede net to a fresher arm mid-game.

A final wrinkle: both teams register 0% high-danger goals and 0% rebound goals, a statistical aberration that reverts to mean. When it does, the differential moves Calgary's way.

The model has Calgary. The underlying metrics support it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CGY 56%

56%

CGY

Model favorite

44%

56%

CHI50CGY

CGY by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 2.4–2.8 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

CHI← edge

edge →CGY

42.0%47.0%

46.0%49.0%

2.172.36

2.942.66

1.841.76

2.412.15

0.9960.985

CGY holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.985) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CHI

5-3-2

+5 GD · 1d rest

CGY

3-5-2

-4 GD · 1d rest

0.996

CHI 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 Flames own the underlying play — 47.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.

Regression watch

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

Things to watch

The Flames own the underlying play — 47.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

back-to-back.956 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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.

CGY

Expected in goal

D. Wolf

back-to-back.977 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.

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

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A

0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh

Connor Bedard17G 27A

0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% 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

Back to the front page