Backcheck
Recap · CGY at LAK

D. Wolf stands tall as the Flames edge the Kings

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

By the ModelJul 11, 8:24 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CGY
Calgary Flames
2
Home
LAK
Los Angeles Kings
1
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.19Expected goals3.67
53% share for the better side
38Shot attempts (SOG)22
8High-danger chances4
62Corsi (all attempts)58
Score-adjusted: 53% / 47%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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)

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
D. WolfCGY
+2.7
D. KuemperLAK
+2.2

CGY finished -2.2 against expected, LAK -2.7 — D. Wolf (CGY) saved 2.7 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
A. Laferriere
#14 · R · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:56 TOI · +1
J. Huberdeau
#10 · L · CGY
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:47 TOI
J. Edmundson
#6 · D · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 19:05 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • CGY generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • D. Wolf (CGY) stopped 2.7 goals above expected.
  • CGY was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 30 rush chances.
  • LAK created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CGY created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • LAK underperformed xG by 2.7 — wasted quality chances.
  • CGY underperformed xG by 2.2 — wasted quality chances.
  • D. Wolf (CGY) saved 2.7 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • D. Kuemper (LAK) saved 2.2 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CGY at LAK · 10:00 PM ET

The Kings are the model's lean over the Flames — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 11, 8:21 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

57%
LAK
Model favorite
43%
57%
CGY50LAK

LAK by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.32.7 LAK; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

CGY← edge
edge →LAK
47.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
49.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.36xGF / 602.42
2.66xGA / 602.20
1.76Goals for / gm1.85
2.15Goals against / gm1.71
0.985PDO — luck, not skill1.002

LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.985 vs 1.002) says LAK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters