Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater

Breakdown · DET at CGY

Red Wings hold off the Flames

FinalWed, Dec 10

DETDetroit Red Wings4 CGYCalgary Flames3

The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.44–4.09 and won anyway.

DET 4 · CGY 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:55 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

Detroit won a game Calgary's numbers said should have gone the other way. The Flames generated 4.09 expected goals to the Red Wings' 3.44, yet finished with 0 points. That gap—nearly a full xG advantage—is the largest disconnect between the score and the underlying play.

Goaltending swung everything. J. Gibson (34/37 saves, 0.919 SV%) stopped 1.1 goals above expected, running hot when it mattered. D. Cooley (25/29, 0.862 SV%) underperformed by 0.56 goals—meaning he coughed up two that any starting netminder should have had. That disparity reversed a game Calgary deserved.

The Flames controlled the game's architecture. They held 56% of shot attempts (37 to 29), owned a 5–4 edge in high-danger chances, and generated two goals from low-danger areas. Their net-crashing was relentless: three rebound opportunities, one converted. But Detroit's rush game cracked the code—3 goals on 23 rush chances, an obscene conversion rate that won't repeat but did damage when it mattered.

MacKenzie Weegar's slap shot from the point symbolized Calgary's dominance in the paint. Yet Detroit's shot quality—0.084 xG per attempt versus Calgary's 0.048—meant fewer looks translated to more damage. The Flames crashed the net effectively. Detroit just executed better when the puck counted.

A. DeBrincat (2G, 1A in 14:56) and A. Copp (2A in 16:44) powered Detroit's attack. N. Kadri (2A in 19:48) kept Calgary's engine turning despite the loss.

#93 A. DeBrincat (DET) — 2G, 1A in 14:56
#91 N. Kadri (CGY) — 2A in 19:48
#18 A. Copp (DET) — 2A in 16:44

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 10

DET

CGY

Red Wings hold off the Flames

Chances 3.4 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flames deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

DET

3.44

CGY

4.09

46% of the chances54%

The board read DET 4, CGY 3. The chances read DET 3.4, CGY 4.1.

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

Luck check

DET

+0.6

goals above expected

DET3.44 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CGY4.09 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 01:02DETA. DeBrincat1–0
P1 04:33DETA. Sandin-Pellikka2–0
P2 07:41DETA. DeBrincat3–0
P2 09:09DETD. Larkin4–0
P3 08:02CGYJ. FarabeePP4–1
P3 09:07CGYM. Coronato4–2
P3 14:40CGYM. Weegar4–3

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

Where the shots came from

DET

36 shots

Final

91 shots

CGY

55 shots

DET CGY GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DETCGY

0 / 4

0.85 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.21 xG

3 / 18

2.27 xG

Medium

0 / 17

1.93 xG

1 / 19

0.32 xG

Low

2 / 63

0.94 xG

High-danger looks: DET 0 of 4, CGY 1 of 5.

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

In the net

B+

J. Gibson

+1.1

DET · 34/37

D. Cooley

−0.6

CGY · 25/29

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Red Wings hold off the Flames

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 7–8

01:02DETA. DeBrincat(P. Kane, A. Copp)1–0
04:33DETA. Sandin-Pellikka(A. DeBrincat, P. Kane)2–0

2ndshots 8–17

07:41DETA. DeBrincat(A. Copp)3–0
09:09DETD. Larkin(L. Raymond)4–0

3rdshots 14–12

08:02CGYJ. Farabeepower play4–1
09:07CGYM. Coronato(N. Kadri)4–2
14:40CGYM. Weegar(R. Andersson, N. Kadri)4–3

score reads DET–CGY

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.44

DET chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.062

DET puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

32.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.44Expected goals4.09

CGY 54% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal37

4High-danger chances5

41All attempts (Corsi)85

Adjusted for score: DET 27% · CGY 74%

Faceoffs · CGY won73%off41%neu25%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DET0 / 4 · 0.85 xG

CGY1 / 5 · 1.21 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DET3 / 18 · 2.27 xG

CGY0 / 17 · 1.93 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DET1 / 19 · 0.32 xG

CGY2 / 63 · 0.94 xG

CGY went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 1.93 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DET

4 G · 3.44 xG · +0.6

CGY

3 G · 4.09 xG · -1.1

012345

DET finished +0.6 against expected, CGY -1.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DET

WRIST2/23

SLAP1/2

SNAP1/3

BACKHAND0/4

TIP IN0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

OTHER0/5

CGY

WRIST2/31

SLAP1/11

SNAP0/5

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN0/2

WRAP AROUND0/2

POKE0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

OTHER0/30

DET

CGY

Off the rush

3 G on 23

1.85 xG

1 G on 32

2.77 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 7

0.97 xG

1 G on 3

0.63 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 2-for-23, CGY 2-for-31. DET 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

J. Gibson

DET · 34/37 · .919

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium0/171.9+1.9

Low2/630.9-1.1

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 · 25/29 · .862

-0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.8+0.8

Medium3/182.3-0.7

Low1/190.3-0.7

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

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DET

36 shots

Final

91 shots

CGY

55 shots

DET CGY GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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

A. DeBrincat

#93 · R · DET

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 14:56 on ice · +3

N. Kadri

#91 · C · CGY

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 19:48 on ice

A. Copp

#18 · C · DET

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:44 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Dec 10

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:43 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 has this as a coin flip: DET 2.5 - 2.5 CGY, with the Flames at 50% win probability. When predictive systems can't pick a winner, neither should you.

Start with form. Calgary has arrived at 7-2-1 over their last 10, while Detroit sits at -7 goal differential in the same span—not the arc you want heading into a toss-up. Season-level numbers, though, offer steadier ground. Both teams are essentially even at 5-on-5: Detroit holds 49.0% expected goals and 49.0% Corsi, while Calgary checks in at 47.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi. Both carry an identical 0.985 PDO—a luck metric signaling both are running cold relative to their shot quality. For Calgary especially, this is worth noting: a 0.985 PDO means the Flames are due for positive regression, one of the few edges available in a game this tight.

Goaltending adds a wrinkle. D. Wolf faces a back-to-back for Detroit, while J. Gibson does the same for Calgary. Watch for a backup appearance or a starter running on fumes.

Detroit's offensive engine hinges on Alex DeBrincat, who carries 0.88 xG/60, 17 goals, 28 assists, and a 9.0% shooting percentage. That last figure—elite conversion—separates good luck from good play. Marco Kasper runs a similar timeline at 0.81 xG/60 with 7 goals and 8 assists, though his 6.1% shooting rate suggests regression incoming.

Calgary counters with Blake Coleman at 0.89 xG/60, 16 goals, 12 assists, and 11.4% shooting—another elite finisher—and Matt Coronato, who operates at 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and 16 assists. Neither team has found separation through volume; both have exploited finishing margins to stay competitive.

The defensive picture? Detroit's weak link is Axel Sandin-Pellikka. Calgary's is Matt Coronato. When both teams are this similar in underlying metrics, defensive burden becomes tactical destiny. Whoever neutralizes the opposing threat—DeBrincat for Calgary or Coleman for Detroit—likely tilts possession and shot quality their way.

In a genuine coin flip, the edges vanish. Both teams project to score 2.5, both can regress in luck, and both have a goaltender potentially compromised by workload. The Flames' recent form offers the softest lean, but in a game this even, expect the team that executes its depth to win.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CGY 51%

50%

CGY

Model favorite

50%

DET50CGY

CGY by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DET 2.5–2.5 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

DET← edge

edge →CGY

49.0%47.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.382.36

2.502.66

1.731.76

2.072.15

0.9850.985

DET holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.985) says DET has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

DET

4-4-2

-7 GD · 1d rest

CGY

7-2-1

+9 GD · 1d rest

0.985

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.985

CGY PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

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

Things to watch

D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Gibson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Flames are the hotter team by points pace (7-2-1 in their last 10).
The Red Wings are underwater at -7 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

DET

Expected in goal

J. Gibson

back-to-back1.000 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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. Wolf

back-to-back.862 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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% 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