Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater

Breakdown · SEA at CGY

Flames run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Dec 18

The verdict · earned

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

SEA 2 · CGY 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:59 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' 4–2 win was more decisive than the scoreline suggests: they controlled 64% of expected goals at 5v5 (4.36–2.46). Calgary dominated in possession metrics. Shot attempts ran 46–23 in their favor, and high-danger chances split 3–2 for Calgary.

Efficiency was the difference. The Flames scored on rush chances at an exceptional rate—4 goals on 33 opportunities. Seattle managed 2 goals on 21 rush chances, a gap that reflected Calgary's pace.

The goaltending was uneven. J. Daccord (SEA) made 42 saves on 45 shots (0.933 SV%), stopping 1.36 goals above expected—elite work wasted in defeat. D. Wolf (CGY) made 21 saves on 23 shots (0.913 SV%), solid but overshadowed by the Flames' dominance.

Mikael Backlund's backhander from the slot at 19:52 of the third punctuated Calgary's control when the game was already decided.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 18

SEA

CGY

Flames run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

SEA

2.46

CGY

4.36

36% of the chances64%

The board read SEA 2, CGY 4. The chances read SEA 2.5, CGY 4.4.

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

Luck check

CGY

−0.4

goals above expected

CGY4.36 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

SEA2.46 expected · 2 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

P2 07:52SEAC. Stephenson1–0
P2 10:20CGYM. Backlund1–1
P2 17:16SEAK. KakkoPP2–1
P3 10:04CGYN. KadriPP2–2
P3 11:19CGYM. Coronato2–3
P3 19:52CGYM. BacklundEN2–4

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

Where the shots came from

SEA

28 shots

Final

85 shots

CGY

57 shots

SEA CGY GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SEACGY

1 / 2

0.45 xG

High danger

1 / 3

1.36 xG

1 / 16

1.74 xG

Medium

2 / 19

2.11 xG

0 / 24

0.27 xG

Low

1 / 54

0.88 xG

High-danger looks: SEA 1 of 2, CGY 1 of 3.

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

In the net

B+

J. Daccord

+1.4

SEA · 42/45

D. Wolf

+0.5

CGY · 21/23

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Flames run the Kraken 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 6–18no goals

2ndshots 13–14

07:52SEAC. Stephenson(E. Tolvanen, F. Gaudreau)1–0
10:20CGYM. Backlund(R. Andersson, J. Hanley)1–1
17:16SEAK. Kakkopower play(R. Evans, J. Nyman)2–1

3rdshots 4–14

10:04CGYN. Kadripower play(R. Andersson, M. Frost)2–2
11:19CGYM. Coronato(R. Andersson, J. Huberdeau)2–3
19:52CGYM. Backlundempty net(N. Kadri, J. Farabee)2–4

score reads SEA–CGY

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.36

CGY chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.4

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.005

CGY puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

64.4%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.46Expected goals4.36

CGY 64% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal46

2High-danger chances3

42All attempts (Corsi)76

Adjusted for score: SEA 35% · CGY 65%

Faceoffs · CGY won64%off73%neu42%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SEA1 / 2 · 0.45 xG

CGY1 / 3 · 1.36 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SEA1 / 16 · 1.74 xG

CGY2 / 19 · 2.11 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SEA0 / 24 · 0.27 xG

CGY1 / 54 · 0.88 xG

SEA went 1-for-16 from medium danger on 1.74 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SEA

2 G · 2.46 xG · -0.5

CGY

4 G · 4.36 xG · -0.4

012345

SEA finished -0.5 against expected, CGY -0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SEA

WRIST0/14

SLAP0/2

SNAP0/5

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND1/2

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/14

CGY

WRIST1/37

SLAP1/10

SNAP0/2

TIP IN0/1

BACKHAND1/3

DEFLECTED1/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/19

SEA

CGY

Off the rush

2 G on 21

1.93 xG

4 G on 33

3.09 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.29 xG

0 G on 5

0.50 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 0-for-14, CGY 1-for-37. CGY scored 4 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. Daccord

SEA · 42/45 · .933

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/31.4+0.4

Medium2/192.1+0.1

Low1/540.9-0.1

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. Wolf

CGY · 21/23 · .913

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.5-0.6

Medium1/161.7+0.7

Low0/240.3+0.3

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SEA

28 shots

Final

85 shots

CGY

57 shots

SEA CGY GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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

0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 25:11 on ice · +3

N. Kadri

#91 · C · CGY

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 22:02 on ice · +1

M. Backlund

#11 · C · CGY

2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 16:34 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 18

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:04 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 2.4-2.5 goal result with Calgary at 53% win probability—as close to even as modeled hockey gets.

Calgary's 5-4-1 run over the last ten games makes them the hotter team. Seattle counters with a -20 goal differential in the same stretch, the sharper indictment. At 5v5, Calgary's advantages are narrow but real: 47.0% expected goals percentage versus Seattle's 46.0%, and a more decisive 49.0% Corsi rate against Seattle's 45.0%, suggesting Calgary controls territorial play. The Flames' 0.985 PDO reflects recent cold; they're due for positive regression. Seattle's 1.011 sits on luck's favorable edge, implying some burn is likely.

Goaltending matters here. Both D. Wolf and P. Grubauer are on back-to-backs—monitor whether either is replaced by a backup or starts tired.

Shane Wright drives Seattle's attack at 0.77 expected goals per 60, accumulating 8 goals and 10 assists with 4 high-danger goals on 10.4% shooting. Berkly Catton supplements at 0.68 xG/60, posting 6 goals and 8 assists with 5 high-danger goals on 8.8% shooting. Calgary's Blake Coleman operates at 0.89 xG/60 with 16 goals and 12 assists, just 2 high-danger goals but sustained 11.4% shooting that reflects genuine offensive threat. Matt Coronato rounds out Calgary's scoring at 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and 16 assists on 6.6% shooting—that rate signals sustained offensive thrust rather than variance.

Chandler Stephenson represents Seattle's defensive liability. For Calgary, Matt Coronato's defensive positioning against his offensive load bears watching. Goaltending steadiness and special teams will likely decide it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CGY 53%

53%

CGY

Model favorite

47%

53%

SEA50CGY

CGY by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.4–2.5 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

SEA← edge

edge →CGY

46.0%47.0%

45.0%49.0%

2.132.36

2.512.66

1.871.76

1.952.15

1.0110.985

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.011 vs 0.985) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

SEA

1-8-1

-20 GD · 1d rest

CGY

5-4-1

-2 GD · 1d rest

1.011

SEA 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 Flames drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

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

Things to watch

The Flames drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
P. Grubauer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Flames are the hotter team by points pace (5-4-1 in their last 10).
The Kraken are underwater at -20 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

SEA

Expected in goal

P. Grubauer

back-to-back.895 last start

Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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.800 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

SEA

Shane Wright8G 10A

0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh

Berkly Catton6G 8A

0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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