Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater

Breakdown · CGY at MIN

Wild shut out the Flames, 2-0

FinalSun, Nov 9

The verdict · stolen

The Wild stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.12–2.64 and won anyway.

CGY 0 · MIN 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:22 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

Minnesota's 2-0 victory masked a game Calgary dominated on paper — the Flames finished with 3.12 expected goals to the Wild's 2.64, a margin that suggested an even contest. Instead, Calgary's underlying quality meant nothing: they were shut out while Minnesota converted efficiently.

The shot volume tells part of the story. Minnesota held 34% of attempts (19 to 36 on goal), yet won decisively. Calgary's problem wasn't volume — it was execution. The Flames generated 6 high-danger chances and converted zero; Minnesota made do with 3 and buried 2, including K. Kaprizov's wrist shot from the high slot (P3, 19:10).

Minnesota demonstrated superior shot quality, generating 0.055 expected goals per attempt versus Calgary's 0.040. The Wild were lethal on the rush, scoring 2 goals on 23 chances. Calgary's push yielded nothing.

J. Wallstedt was exceptional between the pipes, stopping all 36 shots for a 1.000 save percentage — 3.12 goals better than expected. D. Cooley (CGY) kept Calgary alive with a 0.944 save percentage and 1.64 goals saved above expected, but 6 high-danger chances with nothing to show for it means even elite goaltending can't mask a team's failures in front of the net.

This was Minnesota's game to lose, and Calgary's to throw away. The Flames did exactly that.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 9

CGY

MIN

Wild shut out the Flames, 2-0

Chances 3.1 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flames deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

CGY

3.12

MIN

2.64

54% of the chances46%

The board read CGY 0, MIN 2. The chances read CGY 3.1, MIN 2.6.

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

Luck check

MIN

−0.6

goals above expected

MIN2.64 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

CGY3.12 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Flames left 3.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 13:47MINM. Boldy0–1
P3 19:10MINK. KaprizovEN0–2

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

Where the shots came from

CGY

53 shots

Final

88 shots

MIN

35 shots

CGY MIN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 0 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CGYMIN

0 / 6

1.37 xG

High danger

1 / 3

1.24 xG

0 / 8

0.72 xG

Medium

1 / 8

0.74 xG

0 / 63

1.03 xG

Low

0 / 37

0.65 xG

The Flames went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

J. Wallstedt

+3.1

MIN · 36/36

D. Cooley

+1.6

CGY · 17/18

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Wild shut out the Flames, 2-0

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 11–8no goals

2ndshots 12–7

13:47MINM. Boldy(M. Johansson, J. Eriksson Ek)0–1

3rdshots 13–4

19:10MINK. Kaprizovempty net(J. Eriksson Ek, M. Boldy)0–2

score reads CGY–MIN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.64

MIN chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.6

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.042

MIN puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

38.4%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.12Expected goals2.64

CGY 54% of the chance quality

36Shots on goal19

6High-danger chances3

77All attempts (Corsi)48

Adjusted for score: CGY 63% · MIN 37%

Faceoffs · MIN won24%off43%neu58%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CGY0 / 6 · 1.37 xG

MIN1 / 3 · 1.24 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CGY0 / 8 · 0.72 xG

MIN1 / 8 · 0.74 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CGY0 / 63 · 1.03 xG

MIN0 / 37 · 0.65 xG

CGY went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.37 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CGY

0 G · 3.12 xG · -3.1

MIN

2 G · 2.64 xG · -0.6

01234

CGY finished -3.1 against expected, MIN -0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CGY

WRIST0/34

SLAP0/9

SNAP0/2

BACKHAND0/5

TIP IN0/2

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/24

MIN

WRIST2/22

SLAP0/3

SNAP0/4

BACKHAND0/1

TIP IN0/4

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/13

CGY

MIN

Off the rush

0 G on 28

2.14 xG

2 G on 23

2.16 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.36 xG

0 G on 1

0.22 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 0-for-34, MIN 2-for-22. MIN scored 2 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

D. Cooley

CGY · 17/18 · .944

+1.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/31.2+0.2

Medium1/80.7-0.3

Low0/370.7+0.7

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

J. Wallstedt

MIN · 36/36 · 1.000

+3.1

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.4+1.4

Medium0/80.7+0.7

Low0/631.0+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CGY

53 shots

Final

88 shots

MIN

35 shots

CGY MIN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, MIN 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. Eriksson Ek

#14 · C · MIN

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 20:48 on ice · +2

M. Boldy

#12 · L · MIN

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:54 on ice · +2

K. Kaprizov

#97 · L · MIN

1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 18:22 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Nov 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:12 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

Minnesota's underlying advantage is clean—52.0% xG to Calgary's 47.0%—but the Flames' fluky results create an asymmetry worth watching. The model projects a 2.4-2.7 goal Wild victory at 56% win probability, a lean built entirely on shot quality.

Possession and Luck

The Wild control the play, generating better chances at even strength. Calgary owns 49.0% Corsi while Minnesota sits at 48.0%—marginal possession, worse shot creation. The Flames' PDO of 0.985 reflects their cold run; Minnesota's 1.007 reflects their hot one. Regression works both ways: the Flames are due for luck, but so is everyone.

Both Goalies on Fumes

J. Wallstedt and D. Wolf are both on back-to-backs, raising the odds of either a backup start or a fatigued regular. That fatigue layer could muddy an otherwise clean matchup.

Calgary's Scoring Depth

Blake Coleman leads with 0.89 xG/60, 16 goals, 12 assists, and 2 high-danger goals on an 11.4% shooting rate. Matt Coronato runs 0.80 xG/60, 10 goals, and 16 assists at 6.6% shooting—dangerous volume masking a slight underperformance on his looks. The Flames generate 0% of their goals from high-danger chances and 0% from rebounds, meaning they depend almost entirely on clean looks. That's brittle architecture: one bad night and they're stuck.

Minnesota's Dominance

Matt Boldy matches Coleman's 0.89 xG/60 but converts at a far higher rate—22 goals, 18 assists, 5 high-danger goals at 13.7% shooting. He's both more productive and more clinical. Robby Fabbri registers 0.88 xG/60 but is marked likely inactive, making his availability uncertain. The Wild share Calgary's 0% high-danger-goal rate and 0% rebound-goal rate, so both teams are equally reliant on clean looks. The difference: Boldy and the Wild finish at a higher rate.

Minnesota should win on shot quality and efficiency. The Wild's margin is slim but real.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 56%

56%

MIN

Model favorite

44%

56%

CGY50MIN

MIN by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.4–2.7 MIN; 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

CGY← edge

edge →MIN

47.0%52.0%

49.0%48.0%

2.362.55

2.662.40

1.762.04

2.151.93

0.9851.007

MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.007) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CGY

3-5-2

-3 GD · 1d rest

MIN

4-4-2

-4 GD · 1d rest

0.985

CGY PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.007

MIN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Wild 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 Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
J. Wallstedt is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
D. Wolf 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

CGY

Expected in goal

D. Wolf

back-to-back.852 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.

MIN

Expected in goal

J. Wallstedt

back-to-back.926 last start

Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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

MIN

Matt Boldy22G 18A

0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh

Robby Fabbri2G 3A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page