Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Sat, Nov 22 · the slate
Breakdown · DAL at CGY

Flames edge the Stars in a shootout

Final / OTSat, Nov 22
DALDallas Stars2CGYCalgary Flames3
The verdict · earned

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

DAL 2 · CGY 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:21 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

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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Nov 22
DAL
2
CGY
3

Flames edge the Stars in a shootout

Chances 3.8 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
3.81
CGY
4.20
48% of the chances52%

The board read DAL 2, CGY 3. The chances read DAL 3.8, CGY 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
−1.2
goals above expected
CGY4.20 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL3.81 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars left 1.8 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. P1 11:41CGYM. CoronatoPP0–1
  2. P3 01:50CGYJ. FarabeePP0–2
  3. P3 06:44DALJ. Robertson1–2
  4. P3 16:53DALR. Hintz2–2
  5. SO 00:00CGYM. FrostPP2–2
  6. SO 00:00DALJ. RobertsonPP2–2
  7. SO 00:00CGYN. KadriPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
45 shots
3
Final
96 shots
CGY
51 shots
4
DAL attackCGY attack
DAL CGY Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

45
shots · 3 in
51
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALCGY
0 / 8
1.75 xG
High danger
0 / 7
1.69 xG
1 / 12
1.43 xG
Medium
2 / 17
1.80 xG
1 / 37
0.63 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.72 xG

The Stars went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. DeSmith
+2.2
DAL · 31/33
A
D. Cooley
+1.8
CGY · 28/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames edge the Stars 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 13–7
  1. 11:41CGYM. Coronatopower play(N. Kadri, J. Huberdeau)0–1
2ndshots 8–18no goals
    3rdshots 8–7
    1. 01:50CGYJ. Farabeepower play(R. Andersson, N. Kadri)0–2
    2. 06:44DALJ. Robertson(T. Seguin, K. Capobianco)1–2
    3. 16:53DALR. Hintz(J. Robertson, E. Lindell)2–2
    OTshots 1–1no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00CGYM. Frostpower play2–2
      2. 00:00DALJ. Robertsonpower play2–2
      3. 00:00CGYN. Kadripower play2–2

      score reads DAL–CGY

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      4.20
      CGY chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −1.2
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      0.997
      CGY puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      52.5%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.81Expected goals4.20
      CGY 52% of the chance quality
      30Shots on goal33
      8High-danger chances7
      57All attempts (Corsi)63
      Adjusted for score: DAL 51% · CGY 49%
      Faceoffs · CGY won67%off40%neu40%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      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

      DAL finished -1.8 against expected, CGY -1.2.

      Source · Backcheck xG model
      Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
      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
      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. DeSmith
      DAL · 31/33 · .939
      +2.2
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/71.7+1.7
      Medium2/171.8-0.2
      Low0/390.7+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

      D. Cooley
      CGY · 28/30 · .933
      +1.8
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/81.8+1.8
      Medium1/121.4+0.4
      Low1/370.6-0.4

      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

      96 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      DAL
      45 shots
      3
      Final
      96 shots
      CGY
      51 shots
      4
      DAL attackCGY attack
      DAL CGY Goal

      Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

      Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL 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. Robertson
      #21 · L · DAL
      1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 24:43 on ice · +2
      N. Kadri
      #91 · C · CGY
      0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 21:44 on ice
      R. Andersson
      #4 · D · CGY
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 27:18 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Nov 22
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:19 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 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.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      DAL 51%
      51%
      DAL
      Model favorite
      51%
      49%
      DAL50CGY

      DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 2.5–2.4 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
      DAL← edge
      edge →CGY
      51.0%47.0%
      47.0%49.0%
      2.362.36
      2.292.66
      2.071.76
      1.682.15
      1.0240.985

      DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 0.985) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      DAL
      7-2-1
      +13 GD · 1d rest
      CGY
      4-5-1
      -2 GD · 2d rest
      1.024
      DAL PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.985
      CGY PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
      Regression watch
      • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
      • J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Stars 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
      DAL
      Expected in goal
      J. Oettinger
      back-to-back.944 last start
      Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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. Cooley
      2 days rest.933 last start
      Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 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
      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
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page