Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
Breakdown · UTA at CGY

Flames shut out the Mammoth, 2-0

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 0 · CGY 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:17 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

Utah's 3.08-goal underperformance against expected goals explained the scoreboard: the Mammoth couldn't convert despite owning the high-danger zone. Calgary's D. Wolf saved 3.08 goals above expected; Utah's V. Vanecek saved 2.35 above expected but watched his team waste everything else.

The underlying metrics read nearly even—expected goals split 52–48 in Calgary's favor (3.35–3.08). Shot attempts landed at 45% for Calgary (23–28). But high-danger chances told the real story: Utah had 6 and converted zero, while Calgary managed 4 and buried 50%.

Calgary executed at the net's mouth with precision. The Flames crashed effectively, generating four rebound opportunities and converting one. D. Wolf's 1.000 SV% (28/28 saves) on six high-danger shots was the game's defining statement. V. Vanecek's 0.955 SV% (21/22 saves) showed a goalie fighting the tide against his team's execution failures.

The turning point belonged to C. Zary, whose wrist shot from the point at 17:46 gave Calgary a lead they never relinquished. Utah played well enough to expect at least a goal. They didn't get one—that gap between the chances they earned and the ones they finished is what sent them home empty.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 6
UTA
0
CGY
2

Flames shut out the Mammoth, 2-0

Chances 3.1 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Flames took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.08
CGY
3.35
48% of the chances52%

The board read UTA 0, CGY 2. The chances read UTA 3.1, CGY 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
−1.4
goals above expected
CGY3.35 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA3.08 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth left 3.1 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 00:16CGYY. Sharangovich0–1
  2. P3 17:46CGYC. ZaryEN0–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
38 shots
0
Final
77 shots
CGY
39 shots
2
UTA attackCGY attack
UTA CGY Goal
38
shots · 0 in
39
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTACGY
0 / 6
1.49 xG
High danger
2 / 4
1.07 xG
0 / 8
0.94 xG
Medium
0 / 15
1.72 xG
0 / 44
0.65 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.56 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Wolf
+3.1
CGY · 28/28
A
V. Vanecek
+2.4
UTA · 21/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames shut out the Mammoth, 2-0

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 12–9
  1. 00:16CGYY. Sharangovich(N. Kadri, J. Farabee)0–1
2ndshots 9–5no goals
    3rdshots 7–9
    1. 17:46CGYC. Zaryempty net0–2

    score reads UTA–CGY

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.35
    CGY chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.4
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.038
    CGY puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    47.7%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.08Expected goals3.35
    CGY 52% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal23
    6High-danger chances4
    58All attempts (Corsi)53
    Adjusted for score: UTA 56% · CGY 44%
    Faceoffs · CGY won57%off56%neu74%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    UTA0 / 6 · 1.49 xG
    CGY2 / 4 · 1.07 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    UTA0 / 8 · 0.94 xG
    CGY0 / 15 · 1.72 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    UTA0 / 44 · 0.65 xG
    CGY0 / 34 · 0.56 xG

    CGY went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.72 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    UTA
    0 G · 3.08 xG · -3.1
    CGY
    2 G · 3.35 xG · -1.4
    01234

    UTA finished -3.1 against expected, CGY -1.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    UTA
    WRIST0/18
    SNAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/7
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN0/4
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/20
    CGY
    WRIST1/19
    SNAP1/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    SLAP0/8
    TIP IN0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    OTHER0/14
    UTA
    CGY
    Off the rush
    0 G on 25
    2.55 xG
    0 G on 22
    1.64 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.05 xG
    1 G on 4
    0.64 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 0-for-18, CGY 1-for-19.

    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
    V. Vanecek
    UTA · 21/22 · .955
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/41.1-0.9
    Medium0/151.7+1.7
    Low0/340.6+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

    D. Wolf
    CGY · 28/28 · 1.000
    +3.1
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.5+1.5
    Medium0/80.9+0.9
    Low0/440.7+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

    77 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    UTA
    38 shots
    0
    Final
    77 shots
    CGY
    39 shots
    2
    UTA attackCGY attack
    UTA CGY Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA 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
    N. Kadri
    #91 · C · CGY
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:25 on ice · +1
    C. Zary
    #47 · C · CGY
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 18:12 on ice · +1
    J. Farabee
    #86 · L · CGY
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 16:23 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Dec 6
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:14 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 projects a 2.6–2.5 Utah victory, with the Mammoth at 53% win probability. This is as close to even money as playoff hockey gets.

    Utah owns the underlying play. The Mammoth generate 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals against Calgary's 47.0%—a meaningful edge in shot quality. Territorially, it widens: Utah controls 53.0% of Corsi, reflecting relentless offensive pressure. What prevents a runaway is Calgary's luck deficit. The Flames' 0.985 PDO indicates they've been snake-bit; positive regression alone closes this gap significantly.

    Goaltending introduces volatility. D. Wolf faces the back-to-back question—whether Utah deploys their starter tired or reaches for a backup—and that decision lives exactly inside Utah's margin.

    Dylan Guenther is Utah's gravitational center: 1.02 expected goals per 60, 28 goals, 15 assists, and a 16.8% shooting rate that flags both elite performance and shooting luck. Daniil But matches his pace at 1.01 xG/60 but has only 2 goals and 2 assists; his 5.6% shooting rate signals severe underperformance. Guenther is the engine. But is a future hope.

    Calgary counters with Blake Coleman at 0.89 xG/60, 16 goals, and 12 assists—a traditional power forward. Matt Coronato adds 0.80 xG/60, 10 goals, and 16 assists, a playmaker whose 6.6% shooting rate hints at finishing inefficiency. Neither approaches Guenther's caliber.

    Defensively, Maveric Lamoureux is Utah's leak; Matt Coronato fills that role for Calgary. The Flames should hunt Lamoureux. Utah should exploit Coronato's mismatch.

    Utah earns its favorite status through process edge (xG%, Corsi%), Calgary's cold shooting, and the goaltending variable. But 53% is barely above a coin flip—the Flames have every reason to believe this one's winnable.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    UTA 53%
    53%
    UTA
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    UTA50CGY

    UTA by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 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
    UTA← edge
    edge →CGY
    52.0%47.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.642.36
    2.392.66
    2.261.76
    1.992.15
    1.0030.985

    UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.985) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    UTA
    3-5-2
    +1 GD · 2d rest
    CGY
    5-3-2
    +0 GD · 1d rest
    1.003
    UTA 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 Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    UTA
    Expected in goal
    K. Vejmelka
    2 days rest1.000 last start
    Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    CGY
    Expected in goal
    D. Wolf
    back-to-back.963 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.

    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
    UTA
    Dylan Guenther28G 15A
    1.02 xG/60 · 3 HD · 16.8% sh
    Daniil But2G 2A
    1.01 xG/60 · 1 HD · 5.6% 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