Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Thu, Dec 4 · the slate
Breakdown · MIN at CGY

Flames run the Wild off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Dec 4
MINMinnesota Wild1CGYCalgary Flames4
The verdict · earned

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

MIN 1 · CGY 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:02 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 Flames ran the Wild off the ice on expected goals, dominating 61–39 in the underlying metrics (4.67–3.01 xG) before their 4–1 scoreboard victory.

Calgary's edge came from shot quality. The Flames generated 0.074 expected goals per shot versus Minnesota's 0.053, and created far more dangerous chances — nine to four. That efficiency gap proved decisive.

Minnesota's problem was simple: wasted opportunity. The Wild generated 3.01 expected goals but scored just one, underperforming by 2.01 goals. F. Gustavsson saved 1.67 goals above expected, compounding the damage. Good chances, poor execution.

Calgary had the inverse problem. D. Wolf posted a 0.963 save percentage and saved 2.01 goals above expected. The Flames were lethal in transition — scoring 2 goals on 35 rush attempts — and crashed the net effectively, converting one of three rebound opportunities.

Rasmus Andersson's wrist shot from a sharp angle at 19:00 of the third period proved the turning point.

Three Stars

  • R. Andersson (CGY) — 1G, 1A in 23:31
  • M. Coronato (CGY) — 1G, 1A in 13:26
  • M. Backlund (CGY) — 1A in 20:11
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 4
MIN
1
CGY
4

Flames run the Wild off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.0 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.01
CGY
4.67
39% of the chances61%

The board read MIN 1, CGY 4. The chances read MIN 3.0, CGY 4.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
−0.7
goals above expected
CGY4.67 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MIN3.01 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Wild left 2.0 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. P2 04:21CGYJ. Huberdeau0–1
  2. P2 16:51MINY. Trenin1–1
  3. P3 03:33CGYM. Coronato1–2
  4. P3 06:18CGYC. Zary1–3
  5. P3 19:00CGYR. AnderssonEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
42 shots
1
Final
86 shots
CGY
44 shots
4
MIN attackCGY attack
MIN CGY Goal
42
shots · 1 in
44
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINCGY
0 / 4
0.88 xG
High danger
2 / 9
2.47 xG
1 / 17
1.60 xG
Medium
2 / 17
1.67 xG
0 / 36
0.52 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.53 xG

The Wild went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Wolf
+2.0
CGY · 26/27
A
F. Gustavsson
+1.7
MIN · 27/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames run the Wild off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 11–6no goals
    2ndshots 7–15
    1. 04:21CGYJ. Huberdeau(R. Andersson, M. Coronato)0–1
    2. 16:51MINY. Trenin(Z. Bogosian, Z. Buium)1–1
    3rdshots 9–10
    1. 03:33CGYM. Coronato(M. Frost, J. Hanley)1–2
    2. 06:18CGYC. Zary(B. Coleman, M. Backlund)1–3
    3. 19:00CGYR. Anderssonempty net1–4

    score reads MIN–CGY

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.67
    CGY chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.7
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.046
    CGY puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    52.5%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.01Expected goals4.67
    CGY 61% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal31
    4High-danger chances9
    57All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: MIN 51% · CGY 50%
    Faceoffs · CGY won50%off50%neu52%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MIN0 / 4 · 0.88 xG
    CGY2 / 9 · 2.47 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MIN1 / 17 · 1.60 xG
    CGY2 / 17 · 1.67 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MIN0 / 36 · 0.52 xG
    CGY0 / 37 · 0.53 xG

    MIN went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.88 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MIN
    1 G · 3.01 xG · -2.0
    CGY
    4 G · 4.67 xG · -0.7
    012345

    MIN finished -2.0 against expected, CGY -0.7.

    Source · Backcheck xG model
    Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
    What they shot — and what went in

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MIN
    WRIST0/21
    TIP IN1/8
    BACKHAND0/6
    SNAP0/5
    SLAP0/1
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/15
    CGY
    WRIST3/28
    TIP IN0/8
    BACKHAND1/4
    SNAP0/1
    SLAP0/3
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/19
    MIN
    CGY
    Off the rush
    1 G on 25
    1.93 xG
    2 G on 35
    3.58 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.24 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.36 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 0-for-21, CGY 3-for-28. CGY 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
    F. Gustavsson
    MIN · 27/30 · .900
    +1.7
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/92.5+0.5
    Medium2/171.7-0.3
    Low0/370.5+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

    D. Wolf
    CGY · 26/27 · .963
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium1/171.6+0.6
    Low0/360.5+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

    86 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MIN
    42 shots
    1
    Final
    86 shots
    CGY
    44 shots
    4
    MIN attackCGY attack
    MIN CGY Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN 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
    R. Andersson
    #4 · D · CGY
    1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 23:31 on ice · +3
    M. Coronato
    #27 · R · CGY
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 13:26 on ice · +2
    M. Backlund
    #11 · C · CGY
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:11 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Dec 4
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:58 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

    Minnesota enters as a 52% favorite with the model projecting a 2.6–2.5 final. This is as close to a pick'em as the data allows.

    The Wild own the underlying play: a 52.0% 5v5 expected goals share against Calgary's 47.0% means Minnesota is generating better looks consistently. The Flames, however, carry a PDO of 0.985—the kind of suppressed luck that typically corrects upward. Calgary is running cold and due for regression, which narrows what should be a clear advantage.

    The matchup hinges on two offensive dynamics. Minnesota's Matt Boldy sits at 0.89 xG/60 with 22 goals and 18 assists, plus 5 high-danger chances. His 13.7% shooting efficiency suggests he's not unsustainably hot, but his volume and quality make him Calgary's primary containment challenge. Robby Fabbri is a paradox: 0.88 xG/60 underlying but only 2 goals and 3 assists, including 1 high-danger goal, on 6.9% shooting. His metrics are elite; his conversion is not. If Fabbri's cold streak breaks in this game, Minnesota's edge improves sharply.

    Calgary's Blake Coleman mirrors Boldy's threat level exactly: 0.89 xG/60, 16 goals, 12 assists, and 2 high-danger chances. Matt Coronato complicates the Flames' picture. He's generating 0.80 xG/60 and 16 assists, but that's paired with just 10 goals on 6.6% shooting—a classic underperformer relative to volume. Coronato is also listed as Calgary's defensive liability, which compounds the problem: the same player struggling to finish is a vulnerability defending.

    Minnesota's identified defensive weak link is Matt Kiersted. The context matters, though—the Wild have been effective despite this gap, likely due to strong team structure that compensates.

    Tactically, Minnesota's game to lose. The Wild control play, the Flames are lucky to stay close, and regression math favors Calgary stepping forward—but forward from suppressed doesn't guarantee victory. Boldy and Coleman cancel each other out. The difference is Fabbri's dormant shot-making: if it wakes up, the Wild extend their edge; if it stays quiet, Calgary's regression and depth limitations make this a genuine coin flip.

    At 52%, the model is being honest.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    MIN 52%
    52%
    MIN
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    MIN50CGY

    MIN by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MIN 2.6–2.5 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
    MIN← edge
    edge →CGY
    52.0%47.0%
    48.0%49.0%
    2.552.36
    2.402.66
    2.041.76
    1.932.15
    1.0070.985

    MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 0.985) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    MIN
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    CGY
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.007
    MIN 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 Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    MIN
    Matt Boldy22G 18A
    0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Robby Fabbri2G 3A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% 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