Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater

Breakdown · WPG at CGY

Jets edge the Flames in a shootout

Final / OTSat, Nov 15

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 4 · CGY 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:18 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

Winnipeg's 4-3 shootout win over Calgary masked a deeper control issue: the Flames out-attempted the Jets 34-23, yet never controlled the dangerous ice. Winnipeg generated 4.43 expected goals to Calgary's 3.48—a 56-44 split that proved decisive.

Calgary had volume but lacked threat. The Flames finished 5 high-danger chances to Winnipeg's 9, yet scored two goals from low-danger areas. That's the vulnerability: when you're beating the goalie on scraps, he's already beaten you on everything else. D. Wolf kept Calgary in it despite giving up 1.4 goals above expected—a masterclass in standing tall when the chances aren't there.

C. Hellebuyck (WPG, 31/34 saves, 0.912 SV%) was efficient but quieter, a reflection of Winnipeg's dominance in shot quality. The Jets were lethal in transition: 2 goals on 28 rush chances, a conversion rate Calgary couldn't match.

The finish: Gabriel Vilardi's wrist shot from the slot in the shootout proved the margin. Both teams found success crashing for rebounds—each converted one of four opportunities—but Winnipeg's underlying edge finally broke through.

Final: WPG 4 – CGY 3 (SO)

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Nov 15

WPG

CGY

Jets edge the Flames in a shootout

Chances 4.4 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Jets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

WPG

4.43

CGY

3.48

56% of the chances44%

The board read WPG 4, CGY 3. The chances read WPG 4.4, CGY 3.5.

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

Luck check

WPG

−0.4

goals above expected

WPG4.43 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CGY3.48 expected · 3 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 07:19WPGM. Scheifele1–0
P2 07:52CGYJ. Bean1–1
P2 08:25WPGT. Pearson2–1
P2 13:29CGYK. Bahl2–2
P3 01:20WPGC. PerfettiPP3–2
P3 18:46CGYM. CoronatoPP3–3
SO 00:00WPGG. VilardiPP3–3

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

Where the shots came from

WPG

48 shots

Final

98 shots

CGY

50 shots

WPG CGY GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WPGCGY

1 / 9

2.62 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.21 xG

2 / 11

1.22 xG

Medium

0 / 12

1.43 xG

0 / 48

0.58 xG

Low

2 / 46

0.84 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 1 of 9, CGY 1 of 5.

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

In the net

B+

D. Wolf

+1.4

CGY · 20/23

C. Hellebuyck

+0.5

WPG · 31/34

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Jets edge the Flames in a shootout

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 8–12no goals

2ndshots 10–10

07:19WPGM. Scheifele(K. Connor, J. Morrissey)1–0
07:52CGYJ. Bean(B. Pachal, M. Frost)1–1
08:25WPGT. Pearson(L. Schenn, L. Stanley)2–1
13:29CGYK. Bahl(M. Coronato, M. Frost)2–2

3rdshots 4–11

01:20WPGC. Perfettipower play(K. Connor, J. Morrissey)3–2
18:46CGYM. Coronatopower play(R. Andersson, J. Huberdeau)3–3

OTshots 1–1no goals

00:00WPGG. Vilardipower play3–3

score reads WPG–CGY

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.43

WPG chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.4

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.997

WPG puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

51.9%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.43Expected goals3.48

WPG 56% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal34

9High-danger chances5

68All attempts (Corsi)63

Adjusted for score: WPG 51% · CGY 49%

Faceoffs · CGY won56%off50%neu40%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG1 / 9 · 2.62 xG

CGY1 / 5 · 1.21 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG2 / 11 · 1.22 xG

CGY0 / 12 · 1.43 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG0 / 48 · 0.58 xG

CGY2 / 46 · 0.84 xG

WPG went 1-for-9 from high danger on 2.62 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

4 G · 4.43 xG · -0.4

CGY

3 G · 3.48 xG · -0.5

012345

WPG finished -0.4 against expected, CGY -0.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

WPG

WRIST1/26

SNAP2/6

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/1

WRAP AROUND0/2

POKE0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/23

CGY

WRIST0/24

SNAP2/7

SLAP1/9

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/16

WPG

CGY

Off the rush

2 G on 28

2.34 xG

0 G on 25

2.05 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.81 xG

1 G on 4

0.88 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-26, CGY 0-for-24. WPG 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

C. Hellebuyck

WPG · 31/34 · .912

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium0/121.4+1.4

Low2/460.8-1.2

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 · 20/23 · .870

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/92.6+1.6

Medium2/111.2-0.8

Low0/480.6+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

98 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WPG

48 shots

Final

98 shots

CGY

50 shots

WPG CGY GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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

J. Morrissey

#44 · D · WPG

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 24:50 on ice · +1

K. Connor

#81 · L · WPG

0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 20:29 on ice · +1

M. Coronato

#27 · R · CGY

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:05 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 15

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:16 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 2.5–2.6 goal game with the Flames at 51% win probability. This isn't a close call hiding a true favorite; it's genuinely uncertain.

The 5v5 picture explains why. Winnipeg's 48.0% xG% edges Calgary's 47.0%, but they're separated by fractions—not a meaningful advantage. Their Corsi% are identical at 49.0%, reflecting teams trading possession almost evenly. Neither side generates a consistent edge in volume or quality at even strength.

Calgary's PDO of 0.985 signals underperformance: the Flames are getting unlucky on scoring rates and save rates combined. Positive regression is due, though regression isn't destiny. Winnipeg's 0.998 sits right at expectation.

Back-to-back scheduling clouds both goalies. D. Wolf and C. Hellebuyck may appear tired or be pulled for backups—a meaningful variable in a tight matchup.

Winnipeg's Nino Niederreiter carries 0.87 xG/60 and has 6 goals with 6 assists and 3 hard-chance goals, shooting 8.6%. Kyle Connor has 25 goals and 30 assists on 0.83 xG/60, converting 13.0% of attempts. Connor's scoring volume far exceeds Niederreiter's despite similar chance generation, explained by their gap in shooting percentage.

Calgary counters with Blake Coleman, whose 0.89 xG/60 ranks highest among these four. He has 16 goals and 12 assists with 2 hard-chance goals and 11.4% shooting. Matt Coronato carries 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals, 16 assists, and a 6.6% shooting percentage—half Coleman's conversion rate, suggesting inferior chance quality or a correction in progress.

Defensively, both teams report identical high-danger and rebound-goal rates at 0%—statistical noise rather than structure. Colin Miller is Winnipeg's weak link; Matt Coronato is Calgary's.

Neither team owns a meaningful advantage. The model captures this: a coin flip projecting an even, close game.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CGY 51%

51%

CGY

Model favorite

49%

51%

WPG50CGY

CGY by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score WPG 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

WPG← edge

edge →CGY

48.0%47.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.342.36

2.552.66

1.901.76

2.102.15

0.9980.985

WPG holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.985) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

WPG

5-5-0

+1 GD · 1d rest

CGY

4-5-1

+0 GD · 1d rest

0.998

WPG 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.
C. Hellebuyck 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

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

back-to-back.765 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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-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.

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

WPG

Nino Niederreiter6G 6A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh

Kyle Connor25G 30A

0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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

Back to the front page