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

Flames shut out the Sharks, 2-0

The verdict · earned

The Flames earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

SJS 0 · CGY 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:57 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 2-0 victory masks a more dominant underlying story: the Flames controlled 70% of 5v5 expected goals (5.01–2.19) and 68% of shot attempts (36–17). They underperformed their xG by 3.01 goals despite that advantage—elite chance creation met poor finish. Y. Askarov overperformed by 4.01, limiting the damage in a losing effort for San Jose.

The Sharks generated four high-danger chances against Calgary's 10, but had no defense for Calgary's rush. The Flames scored both goals on 38 rush attempts, punishing transition play efficiently. Calgary created three rebound opportunities and converted none—the chances existed; the finish didn't.

D. Wolf (17/17, 1.000 SV%, +2.19) was equally sharp in a game Calgary dominated. Samuel Honzek's wrist shot from the wing at 19:55 of the third period proved the game's defining moment. M. Backlund earned the primary assist over 16:00 of ice time, while B. Coleman and S. Honzek—who scored—played 15:19 and 15:18 respectively.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 13
SJS
0
CGY
2

Flames shut out the Sharks, 2-0

Chances 2.2 – 5.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
2.19
CGY
5.01
31% of the chances70%

The board read SJS 0, CGY 2. The chances read SJS 2.2, CGY 5.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
−3.0
goals above expected
CGY5.01 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS2.19 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sharks left 2.2 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 05:46CGYB. Coleman0–1
  2. P3 19:55CGYS. HonzekEN0–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
27 shots
0
Final
79 shots
CGY
52 shots
2
SJS attackCGY attack
SJS CGY Goal
27
shots · 0 in
52
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSCGY
0 / 4
0.83 xG
High danger
2 / 10
2.94 xG
0 / 11
1.03 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.21 xG
0 / 27
0.34 xG
Low
0 / 57
0.86 xG

The Sharks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
Y. Askarov
+4.0
SJS · 34/35
A
D. Wolf
+2.2
CGY · 17/17
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames shut out the Sharks, 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 1–13no goals
    2ndshots 6–14
    1. 05:46CGYB. Coleman0–1
    3rdshots 10–9
    1. 19:55CGYS. Honzekempty net(M. Backlund)0–2

    score reads SJS–CGY

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.01
    CGY chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −3.0
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.026
    CGY puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    65.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.19Expected goals5.01
    CGY 70% of the chance quality
    17Shots on goal36
    4High-danger chances10
    42All attempts (Corsi)78
    Adjusted for score: SJS 37% · CGY 63%
    Faceoffs · CGY won90%off46%neu36%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    SJS0 / 4 · 0.83 xG
    CGY2 / 10 · 2.94 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    SJS0 / 11 · 1.03 xG
    CGY0 / 11 · 1.21 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    SJS0 / 27 · 0.34 xG
    CGY0 / 57 · 0.86 xG

    CGY went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.21 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    SJS
    0 G · 2.19 xG · -2.2
    CGY
    2 G · 5.01 xG · -3.0
    0123456

    SJS finished -2.2 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
    SJS
    WRIST0/14
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    SNAP0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/15
    CGY
    WRIST2/37
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/4
    SNAP0/4
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/26
    SJS
    CGY
    Off the rush
    0 G on 18
    1.65 xG
    2 G on 38
    4.35 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.23 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.43 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 0-for-14, CGY 2-for-37. CGY 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
    Y. Askarov
    SJS · 34/35 · .971
    +4.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/102.9+0.9
    Medium0/111.2+1.2
    Low0/570.9+0.9

    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 · 17/17 · 1.000
    +2.2
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.8+0.8
    Medium0/111.0+1.0
    Low0/270.3+0.3

    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

    79 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    SJS
    27 shots
    0
    Final
    79 shots
    CGY
    52 shots
    2
    SJS attackCGY attack
    SJS CGY Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS 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
    M. Backlund
    #11 · C · CGY
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:00 on ice · +2
    B. Coleman
    #20 · L · CGY
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 15:19 on ice · +2
    S. Honzek
    #29 · L · CGY
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 15:18 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Nov 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:56 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 SJS 2.5–2.6 CGY game with the Flames at 52% win probability, which is about as close to a pick'em as you'll get. Both teams are operating at nearly identical underlying strength.

    The Sharks are the hotter team by points pace, running 7-2-1 in their last 10. San Jose's shot generation—48.0% expected goals and 47.0% Corsi (shot volume)—is nearly matched by Calgary at 47.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi%, meaning neither team has pulled away structurally.

    The Flames are running cold. Their 0.985 PDO—a measure of scoring luck—signals positive regression: they've earned more chances than results show. San Jose's 0.998 is neutral, suggesting less room for variance swings.

    Goaltending could decide this. D. Wolf and Y. Askarov are both on back-to-backs, so watch for either a backup start or a tired starter.

    Pavol Regenda leads San Jose with 1.10 xG/60 and 5G 1A, though marked inactive. Igor Chernyshov offers 0.91 xG/60 and 6G 8A. Calgary's Blake Coleman posts 0.89 xG/60 with 16G 12A, a far more consistent contributor. Matt Coronato generates 0.80 xG/60 but has just 10G and 16 assists on a 6.6% shooting rate—evidence that puck luck has eluded him.

    The Flames are due. A team generating chances at their underlying rate should have won more games. They're the safer expected-value play. San Jose's recent form and nearly identical metrics, though, make this exactly what 52% looks like: a genuine coin flip where either team is equipped to win.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CGY 52%
    52%
    CGY
    Model favorite
    48%
    52%
    SJS50CGY

    CGY by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SJS 2.5–2.6 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
    SJS← edge
    edge →CGY
    48.0%47.0%
    47.0%49.0%
    2.332.36
    2.562.66
    1.991.76
    2.322.15
    0.9980.985

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.985) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    SJS
    7-2-1
    +10 GD · 1d rest
    CGY
    3-6-1
    -4 GD · 1d rest
    0.998
    SJS PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.985
    CGY PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • Y. Askarov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Sharks are the hotter team by points pace (7-2-1 in 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
    SJS
    Expected in goal
    Y. Askarov
    back-to-back.966 last start
    Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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.903 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
    SJS
    Pavol Regenda5G 1A
    1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
    Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% 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