Breakdown · CGY at CHI

Blackhawks pull away from the Flames

FinalTue, Nov 18

CGYCalgary Flames2 CHIChicago Blackhawks5

The verdict · earned

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

CGY 2 · CHI 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:39 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 dominated the Flames 5-2, yet expected goals finished 2.57–2.34—a far tighter contest than the scoreboard suggested.

This wasn't dominance by underlying metrics. Chicago held 52% of shot attempts (23–21 on goal) and 52% of expected goals. They outshot Calgary marginally. But Chicago finished ruthlessly, converting at an elite rate. D. Wolf struggled in net, posting a 0.818 save percentage—1.4 goals worse than expected.

A. Soderblom stopped 19 of 21 for a 0.905 mark. Chicago's rush finishing was devastating: four goals on 23 attempts versus Calgary's two on 19.

Connor Bedard scored three goals in 20:01, driving the Chicago attack. R. Andersson answered for Calgary with a goal and assist, while O. Moore added a goal and assist for Chicago. Bedard's individual output proved decisive.

The underlying possession and shot metrics favored Chicago modestly. What separated the teams was finishing. Chicago overperformed their expected goals by 2.43, a substantial margin driven by clinical execution. Calgary, despite generating more high-danger opportunities (three to two), couldn't convert.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 18

CGY

CHI

Blackhawks pull away from the Flames

Chances 2.3 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Blackhawks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

CGY

2.34

CHI

2.57

48% of the chances52%

The board read CGY 2, CHI 5. The chances read CGY 2.3, CHI 2.6.

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

Luck check

CHI

+2.4

goals above expected

CHI2.57 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

CGY2.34 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blackhawks scored 2.4 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 15:05CHIR. Donato0–1
P2 15:11CHIC. Bedard0–2
P2 19:32CGYM. CoronatoPP1–2
P3 03:02CGYR. Andersson2–2
P3 04:57CHIC. Bedard2–3
P3 13:04CHIO. Moore2–4
P3 19:19CHIC. BedardEN2–5

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

Where the shots came from

CGY

35 shots

Final

69 shots

CHI

34 shots

CGY CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CGYCHI

1 / 3

0.69 xG

High danger

1 / 2

0.79 xG

1 / 11

1.12 xG

Medium

4 / 11

1.20 xG

0 / 35

0.52 xG

Low

0 / 37

0.58 xG

High-danger looks: CGY 1 of 3, CHI 1 of 2.

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

In the net

A. Soderblom

+0.3

CHI · 19/21

D-

D. Wolf

−1.4

CGY · 18/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blackhawks pull away from the Flames

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 4–5

15:05CHIR. Donato(L. Crevier, O. Moore)0–1

2ndshots 7–9

15:11CHIC. Bedard(S. Rinzel)0–2
19:32CGYM. Coronatopower play(N. Kadri, R. Andersson)1–2

3rdshots 10–9

03:02CGYR. Andersson(M. Backlund, A. Klapka)2–2
04:57CHIC. Bedard(R. Greene, A. Burakovsky)2–3
13:04CHIO. Moore(F. Nazar)2–4
19:19CHIC. Bedardempty net2–5

score reads CGY–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.57

CHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.059

CHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.34Expected goals2.57

CHI 52% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal23

3High-danger chances2

49All attempts (Corsi)50

Adjusted for score: CGY 53% · CHI 47%

Faceoffs · CHI won44%off39%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CGY1 / 3 · 0.69 xG

CHI1 / 2 · 0.79 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CGY1 / 11 · 1.12 xG

CHI4 / 11 · 1.20 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CGY0 / 35 · 0.52 xG

CHI0 / 37 · 0.58 xG

CHI went 4-for-11 from medium danger on 1.20 expected goals — 2.8 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CGY

2 G · 2.34 xG · -0.3

CHI

5 G · 2.57 xG · +2.4

0123456

CGY finished -0.3 against expected, CHI +2.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CGY

WRIST2/24

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/1

SNAP0/3

POKE0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

TIP IN0/1

OTHER0/14

CHI

WRIST2/20

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND1/5

SNAP1/3

POKE1/2

DEFLECTED0/0

TIP IN0/0

OTHER0/16

CGY

CHI

Off the rush

2 G on 19

1.51 xG

4 G on 23

1.85 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.23 xG

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 2-for-24, CHI 2-for-20. 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

D. Wolf

CGY · 18/22 · .818

-1.4

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.8-0.2

Medium4/111.2-2.8

Low0/370.6+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

A. Soderblom

CHI · 19/21 · .905

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.7-0.3

Medium1/111.1+0.1

Low0/350.5+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

69 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CGY

35 shots

Final

69 shots

CHI

34 shots

CGY CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, CHI 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

3 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 20:01 on ice · +2

R. Andersson

#4 · D · CGY

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:13 on ice · -1

O. Moore

#11 · C · CHI

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 13:48 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Nov 18

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:45 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 favors Calgary at 52%, but barely. A projected 2.6-2.5 game lands this squarely in pick'em territory.

Calgary owns the underlying play. At 5v5, they're generating 47.0% expected goals to Chicago's 42.0%, and leading 49.0% in Corsi to the Hawks' 46.0%. But the Flames are down 5 goals over their last 10 with a 0.985 PDO—well below neutral. That's the regression edge: they're playing better than their recent results suggest.

The Flames' output comes from Blake Coleman and Matt Coronato. Coleman operates at 0.89 expected goals per 60 with 16 goals and 12 assists, including 2 high-danger goals on 11.4% shooting. Coronato is at 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and 16 assists on 6.6% shooting.

Chicago leans on Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard. Bertuzzi sits at 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals and 15 assists, 7 high-danger goals, and 18.0% shooting. Bedard is at 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals and 27 assists, 5 high-danger goals on 11.8% shooting.

Calgary has the structural advantage and positive regression ahead. But Chicago's individual heat—Bertuzzi and Bedard executing at high rates—narrows the gap. The model's coin flip reflects that tension.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CGY 52%

52%

CGY

Model favorite

52%

48%

CGY50CHI

CGY by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CGY 2.6–2.5 CHI; 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 →CHI

47.0%42.0%

49.0%46.0%

2.362.17

2.662.94

1.761.84

2.152.41

0.9850.996

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CGY

3-5-2

-5 GD · 2d rest

CHI

5-3-2

+7 GD · 2d rest

0.985

CGY PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.996

CHI 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%.
The Flames are underwater at -5 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

CGY

Expected in goal

D. Wolf

2 days rest.870 last start

Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

2 days rest.939 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page