Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater

Breakdown · CGY at FLA

Flames hold off the Panthers

FinalFri, Nov 28

The verdict · stolen

The Flames stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.94–5.42 and won anyway.

CGY 5 · FLA 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:56 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 won 5-3. Florida should have won 5-3.

The Panthers dominated expected goals at 58% (5.42–3.94), owned shot attempts at 55% (41–34), and tied high-danger chances 7-7. On paper, this was a Florida victory. On the scoreboard, it was Calgary's heist.

D. Cooley did the stealing. His 0.927 SV% meant he stopped 2.42 goals above expected — the swing that flipped the game. D. Tarasov's 0.879 SV% for Florida couldn't compete.

Where Calgary punched above its class: three goals came from low-danger spots, locations an NHL goaltender should routinely deny. On the rush, Calgary converted 2 of 22 chances; Florida converted 3 of 37. At the net front, neither team found rhythm — Florida crashed for 12 rebound attempts and scored on none; Calgary created 7 chances and converted one.

The Panthers' problem wasn't process. They underperformed their xG by 2.4 goals, which doesn't happen often to teams this efficient. Joel Farabee's snap from the wing at 18:57 of the third period gave Calgary the breathing room it needed.

N. Kadri led Calgary's finish: 1 goal and 2 assists in 18:59. R. Andersson added 2 assists in 22:59. For Florida, S. Reinhart recorded 2 assists in 21:20 — solid work that still wasn't enough.

Three Stars

#91 N. Kadri (CGY) — 1G, 2A
#4 R. Andersson (CGY) — 2A
#13 S. Reinhart (FLA) — 2A

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 28

CGY

FLA

Flames hold off the Panthers

Chances 3.9 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

CGY

3.94

FLA

5.42

42% of the chances58%

The board read CGY 5, FLA 3. The chances read CGY 3.9, FLA 5.4.

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

Luck check

CGY

+1.1

goals above expected

CGY3.94 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

FLA5.42 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Panthers left 2.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 00:54FLAE. Rodrigues0–1
P1 02:58FLAS. Bennett0–2
P1 05:35CGYY. Kuznetsov1–2
P1 10:41CGYM. Weegar2–2
P2 00:55CGYM. FrostPP3–2
P2 18:44CGYN. Kadri4–2
P3 11:54FLAB. Marchand4–3

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

CGY

50 shots

Final

115 shots

FLA

65 shots

CGY FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CGYFLA

2 / 7

1.83 xG

High danger

2 / 7

1.68 xG

0 / 12

1.46 xG

Medium

0 / 27

2.95 xG

3 / 43

0.65 xG

Low

1 / 62

0.79 xG

The Flames buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

D. Cooley

+2.4

CGY · 38/41

D. Tarasov

−0.1

FLA · 29/33

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Flames hold off the Panthers

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 14–20

00:54FLAE. Rodrigues(S. Reinhart, J. Boqvist)0–1
02:58FLAS. Bennett(A. Greer, C. Verhaeghe)0–2
05:35CGYY. Kuznetsov(B. Coleman)1–2
10:41CGYM. Weegar(M. Backlund, C. Zary)2–2

2ndshots 10–8

00:55CGYM. Frostpower play(R. Andersson, N. Kadri)3–2
18:44CGYN. Kadri(R. Andersson, J. Farabee)4–2

3rdshots 10–13

11:54FLAB. Marchand(S. Reinhart, A. Lundell)4–3
18:57CGYJ. Farabeeempty net(N. Kadri)5–3

score reads CGY–FLA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.94

CGY chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.049

CGY puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

39.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.94Expected goals5.42

FLA 58% of the chance quality

34Shots on goal41

7High-danger chances7

62All attempts (Corsi)96

Adjusted for score: CGY 37% · FLA 63%

Faceoffs · FLA won58%off42%neu43%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CGY2 / 7 · 1.83 xG

FLA2 / 7 · 1.68 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CGY0 / 12 · 1.46 xG

FLA0 / 27 · 2.95 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CGY3 / 43 · 0.65 xG

FLA1 / 62 · 0.79 xG

FLA went 0-for-27 from medium danger on 2.95 expected goals — 3.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CGY

5 G · 3.94 xG · +1.1

FLA

3 G · 5.42 xG · -2.4

0123456

CGY finished +1.1 against expected, FLA -2.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CGY

SNAP1/24

BACKHAND1/9

SLAP1/8

TIP IN1/5

WRIST1/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/12

FLA

SNAP2/41

BACKHAND0/8

SLAP0/3

TIP IN0/6

WRIST1/5

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/31

CGY

FLA

Off the rush

2 G on 22

1.72 xG

3 G on 37

2.90 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 7

1.18 xG

0 G on 12

1.75 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CGY went 1-for-24, FLA 2-for-41. FLA scored 3 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. Cooley

CGY · 38/41 · .927

+2.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/71.7-0.3

Medium0/273.0+3.0

Low1/620.8-0.2

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. Tarasov

FLA · 29/33 · .879

-0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/71.8-0.2

Medium0/121.5+1.5

Low3/430.7-2.4

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

115 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CGY

50 shots

Final

115 shots

FLA

65 shots

CGY FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

N. Kadri

#91 · C · CGY

1 G · 2 A · 8 SOG · 18:59 on ice · +2

R. Andersson

#4 · D · CGY

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 22:59 on ice · +1

S. Reinhart

#13 · C · FLA

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:20 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Nov 28

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:55 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 this as nearly a pick'em. It projects Calgary at 2.5 expected goals and Florida at 2.7, giving the Panthers a 54% win probability.

Calgary is the worry. The Flames are -5 in goal differential over their last ten games, suggesting recent play has been sloppy or unlucky or both. But there's a safety valve: their PDO of 0.985 is running cold. When a team's shot quality and goaltending both underperform luck, regression is nearly certain. Calgary should expect better results in similar games from here.

The season-long picture shows Florida with a structural advantage. The Panthers drive play at 52.0% Corsi while Calgary sits at 49.0%. That territorial edge translates to xG%: Florida 49.0%, Calgary 47.0%. None of this is overwhelming, but it's consistent. Florida wins close-range battles.

Goaltending could muddy things. S. Bobrovsky plays on a back-to-back, as does D. Cooley. Either starter may rest, or the real one takes the ice tired. That unpredictability is worth noting but hard to bet on.

The players tell the story:

Blake Coleman (Calgary) carries 0.89 xG per 60 minutes with 16 goals, 12 assists, and an 11.4% shooting rate—two of those goals came from high-danger chances. Matt Coronato (Calgary) is at 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and 16 assists, but his 6.6% shooting rate flags as a regression risk; he's likely to score more on similar volume.

Sam Bennett (Florida) leads at 0.97 xG/60 with 18 goals, 19 assists, and six high-danger tallies. His 13.1% shooting rate is sustainable. Brad Marchand (Florida) generates 0.93 xG/60 with 17 goals, nine assists, and three high-danger goals—but his 19.5% shooting rate is an outlier. Marchand won't stay this hot.

Both teams clock 0% on high-danger and rebound goals, which signals either exceptional goaltending or randomness so far. One or both rates will move toward the league mean.

The matchup hinges on whether Calgary's regression window opens before puck drop. If it does—if the Flames' luck follows their underlying play—they'll keep this tight despite Florida's structural edge. If not, Florida's territorial dominance will separate them. The model, correctly, won't pick a side.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 54%

54%

FLA

Model favorite

46%

54%

CGY50FLA

FLA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.5–2.7 FLA; 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 →FLA

47.0%49.0%

49.0%52.0%

2.362.48

2.662.56

1.761.98

2.152.21

0.9850.989

FLA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.989) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CGY

4-5-1

-5 GD · 1d rest

FLA

6-4-0

+7 GD · 1d rest

0.985

CGY PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
S. Bobrovsky is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
D. Cooley is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
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. Cooley

back-to-back.895 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.

FLA

Expected in goal

S. Bobrovsky

back-to-back.778 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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

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

FLA

Sam Bennett18G 19A

0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh

Brad Marchand17G 9A

0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page