Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Sat, Dec 13 · the slate
Breakdown · CGY at LAK

D. Wolf stands tall as the Flames edge the Kings

Final / OTSat, Dec 13
CGYCalgary Flames2LAKLos Angeles Kings1
The verdict · earned

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

CGY 2 · LAK 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:24 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 Kings played the superior game by advanced metrics—expected goals split 3.67–4.19 in their favor, high-danger chances went 4–8—but couldn't overcome a 0.955 SV% from D. Wolf (CGY). The goaltender stole 2.67 goals above expected, flipping a game the numbers clearly favored Los Angeles.

Los Angeles underperformed their xG by 2.67 goals, wasting quality chances when the game was decided. D. Kuemper (LAK) also excelled (0.947 SV%, +2.19 above expected), but couldn't overcome the team's finish. The Kings held 37% of shot attempts (22–38 on goal) and created three rebound opportunities, converting neither.

Calgary succeeded through rush efficiency: 2 goals on 30 rush chances. Morgan Frost's tip-in at 01:06 of overtime, from the doorstep, decided a game the Flames had also underplayed—they underperformed their xG by 2.19 through regulation. When both teams squander their numbers, goaltending decides.

Final: CGY 2 – LAK 1 (OT)

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Dec 13
CGY
2
LAK
1

D. Wolf stands tall as the Flames edge the Kings

Chances 4.2 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
4.19
LAK
3.67
53% of the chances47%

The board read CGY 2, LAK 1. The chances read CGY 4.2, LAK 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
−2.2
goals above expected
CGY4.19 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK3.67 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings left 2.7 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 11:10LAKA. Kempe0–1
  2. P2 06:41CGYB. ColemanSH1–1
  3. OT 01:06CGYM. Frost2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
46 shots
2
Final
88 shots
LAK
42 shots
1
CGY attackLAK attack
CGY LAK Goal
46
shots · 2 in
42
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYLAK
1 / 8
1.85 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.44 xG
1 / 18
1.89 xG
Medium
1 / 17
1.66 xG
0 / 36
0.46 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.56 xG

The Kings went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Wolf
+2.7
CGY · 21/22
A
D. Kuemper
+2.2
LAK · 36/38
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

D. Wolf stands tall as the Flames edge the Kings

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. 11:10LAKA. Kempe(A. Laferriere, J. Edmundson)0–1
2ndshots 17–4
  1. 06:41CGYB. Colemanshorthanded1–1
3rdshots 7–11no goals
    OTshots 1–0
    1. 01:06CGYM. Frost(J. Huberdeau)2–1

    score reads CGY–LAK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.19
    CGY chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.015
    CGY puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    51.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.19Expected goals3.67
    CGY 53% of the chance quality
    38Shots on goal22
    8High-danger chances4
    62All attempts (Corsi)58
    Adjusted for score: CGY 53% · LAK 47%
    Faceoffs · LAK won37%off67%neu64%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CGY1 / 8 · 1.85 xG
    LAK0 / 4 · 1.44 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CGY1 / 18 · 1.89 xG
    LAK1 / 17 · 1.66 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CGY0 / 36 · 0.46 xG
    LAK0 / 37 · 0.56 xG

    LAK went 0-for-4 from high danger on 1.44 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CGY
    2 G · 4.19 xG · -2.2
    LAK
    1 G · 3.67 xG · -2.7
    012345

    CGY finished -2.2 against expected, LAK -2.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CGY
    WRIST0/25
    TIP IN1/6
    SNAP1/6
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/16
    LAK
    WRIST0/27
    TIP IN0/5
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP1/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/16
    CGY
    LAK
    Off the rush
    2 G on 30
    3.11 xG
    1 G on 28
    2.78 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.50 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.43 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 0-for-25, LAK 0-for-27. 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
    D. Wolf
    CGY · 21/22 · .955
    +2.7
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/41.4+1.4
    Medium1/171.7+0.7
    Low0/370.6+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. Kuemper
    LAK · 36/38 · .947
    +2.2
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/81.9+0.8
    Medium1/181.9+0.9
    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

    88 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CGY
    46 shots
    2
    Final
    88 shots
    LAK
    42 shots
    1
    CGY attackLAK attack
    CGY LAK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, LAK 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. Laferriere
    #14 · R · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:56 on ice · +1
    J. Huberdeau
    #10 · L · CGY
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:47 on ice
    J. Edmundson
    #6 · D · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 19:05 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Dec 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:21 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 likes the Kings. It projects a 2.3–2.7 game with the Kings at 57% win probability, anchored in one clear advantage: they dominate the underlying play.

    At 5v5, Los Angeles generates 52.0% expected goals against Calgary's 47.0%. In possession, the spread widens slightly—Corsi runs 52.0% for the Kings, 49.0% for the Flames. That's a territorial tilt that shows up in shot location and volume, the kind of edge that compounds over 60 minutes.

    Calgary has an out. Their PDO sits at 0.985, a sign of underperformance. When a team's save percentage and shooting accuracy fall below their talent level, regression pulls them back up. The Flames are due. The Kings, conversely, sit at 1.002 PDO—results in line with process—so there's no give-back waiting. Even so, the expected-goals gap is wide enough that Calgary will need a perfect storm to close it.

    The offensive burden falls on Calgary's top-line creators. Blake Coleman operates at 0.89 xG/60 with 16G, 12A, 2 high-danger goals, and an 11.4% shooting rate. Matt Coronato carries 10G, 16A with 0.80 xG/60 and 6.6% shooting. Los Angeles answers with Alex Laferriere at 0.87 xG/60, 16G, 18A, 2 high-danger goals, and 9.9% shooting. Jared Wright, despite 0G and 4A, generates 0.83 xG/60—volume creation in search of results.

    The math is straightforward. Superior chance generation, no equivalent regression waiting—the Kings' edge holds.

    Players to Watch

    CGY: Blake Coleman, Matt Coronato

    LAK: Alex Laferriere, Jared Wright

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 57%
    57%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    CGY50LAK

    LAK by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.3–2.7 LAK; 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 →LAK
    47.0%52.0%
    49.0%52.0%
    2.362.42
    2.662.20
    1.761.85
    2.151.71
    0.9851.002

    LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.002) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CGY
    6-3-1
    +4 GD · 2d rest
    LAK
    4-2-4
    +3 GD · 2d rest
    0.985
    CGY PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.002
    LAK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Kings 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 Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • 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
    2 days rest.862 last start
    Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    LAK
    Expected in goal
    A. Forsberg
    2 days rest.909 last start
    Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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
    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
    LAK
    Alex Laferriere16G 18A
    0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
    Jared Wright0G 4A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page