Backcheck
Recap · DAL at CGY

Flames edge the Stars in a shootout

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

By the ModelJul 11, 5:21 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
DAL
Dallas Stars
2
Home
CGY
Calgary Flames
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.81Expected goals4.20
52% share for the better side
30Shot attempts (SOG)33
8High-danger chances7
57Corsi (all attempts)63
Score-adjusted: 51% / 49%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Flames and Stars played to a standstill on paper — 4.20 xG for Calgary, 3.81 for Dallas, a 52–48 split. The Flames won it in the shootout on N. Kadri's backhander, but could have gone either way.

The shot count favored Calgary 33–30, while high-danger chances split 7–8 to Dallas. Both teams wasted quality chances — Calgary converted nothing on their seven high-danger opportunities; Dallas couldn't convert on eight. That variance decided the game as much as execution did.

D. Cooley (CGY) made 28 of 30 saves for a 0.933 SV%, outperforming expected by 1.81 goals. C. DeSmith (DAL) stopped 31 of 33 (0.939 SV%), a +2.20 performance. Both goalies played above their expected performance, yet the Flames left 1.20 goals of expected production on the table, while Dallas left 1.81.

Off the rush, both teams scored twice — Calgary on 30 chances, Dallas on 27. The game turned when N. Kadri converted in the shootout.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DAL0 / 8 · 1.75 xG
CGY0 / 7 · 1.69 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DAL1 / 12 · 1.43 xG
CGY2 / 17 · 1.80 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DAL1 / 37 · 0.63 xG
CGY0 / 39 · 0.72 xG

DAL went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.75 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DAL
2 G · 3.81 xG · -1.8
CGY
3 G · 4.20 xG · -1.2
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. DeSmithDAL
+2.2
D. CooleyCGY
+1.8

DAL finished -1.8 against expected, CGY -1.2 — C. DeSmith (DAL) saved 2.2 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
DAL
WRIST1/31
SNAP1/4
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/16
CGY
WRIST1/24
SNAP0/7
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/16
DAL
CGY
Off the rush
2 G on 27 · 2.79 xG
2 G on 30 · 2.66 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4 · 0.40 xG
0 G on 6 · 1.06 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 1-for-31, CGY 1-for-24. DAL scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Robertson
#21 · L · DAL
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 24:43 TOI · +2
N. Kadri
#91 · C · CGY
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 21:44 TOI
R. Andersson
#4 · D · CGY
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 27:18 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • C. DeSmith (DAL) stopped 2.2 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 15 high-danger chances combined (CGY 7, DAL 8).
  • CGY couldn't convert — 0/7 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • DAL couldn't convert — 0/8 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • CGY was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 30 rush chances.
  • DAL was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 27 rush chances.
  • CGY created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • DAL created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CGY underperformed xG by 2.2 — wasted quality chances.
  • DAL underperformed xG by 1.8 — wasted quality chances.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · DAL at CGY · 10:00 PM ET

Stars at Flames: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 5:19 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
DAL
Model favorite
51%
49%
DAL50CGY

DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 2.52.4 CGY; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

DAL← edge
edge →CGY
51.0%5v5 xG%47.0%
47.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.36xGF / 602.36
2.29xGA / 602.66
2.07Goals for / gm1.76
1.68Goals against / gm2.15
1.024PDO — luck, not skill0.985

DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.024 vs 0.985) says DAL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model sees Dallas and Calgary separated by tenths of a goal. With the Stars at 51% win probability and an expected 2.5–2.4 final score, this is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Dallas owns the underlying play—51.0% expected goals to Calgary's 47.0% at 5v5. The Stars are also the form team, going 7-2-1 over their last ten games to build points pace.

Here's the tension: Dallas's 1.024 PDO ranks among league outliers. The Stars are running hot in puck luck and converting at unsustainable rates. Calgary, meanwhile, sits at 0.985 PDO, skating through measurable cold. Regression pressure cuts both directions. The Flames figure to improve, and Dallas to regress. That balance is partly why the model keeps this so tight.

J. Oettinger arrives on a back-to-back, which often signals a backup start or a starter carrying fatigue. How Dallas manages that slot could shift the probabilities.

Players to Watch

  • Jason Robertson, DAL — 0.96 xG/60, 25G 21A, 2 HD goals, 12.4% shooting
  • Michael Bunting, DAL — 0.83 xG/60, 8G 14A, 7.6% shooting
  • Blake Coleman, CGY — 0.89 xG/60, 16G 12A, 2 HD goals, 11.4% shooting
  • Matt Coronato, CGY — 0.80 xG/60, 10G 16A, 6.6% shooting

Both teams sit at 0% high-danger and rebound goal rates. The Stars need to avoid the regression sink and execute at their current clip. The Flames need both the PDO reversion and the back-to-back advantage. That the model still can't separate them is telling: this one genuinely could go either way.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters