Backcheck
Recap · SEA at CGY

Flames run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 11, 8:59 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
SEA
Seattle Kraken
2
Home
CGY
Calgary Flames
4
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.46Expected goals4.36
64% share for the better side
23Shot attempts (SOG)46
2High-danger chances3
42Corsi (all attempts)76
Score-adjusted: 35% / 65%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. DaccordSEA
+1.4
D. WolfCGY
+0.5

SEA finished -0.5 against expected, CGY -0.4 — J. Daccord (SEA) saved 1.4 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
R. Andersson
#4 · D · CGY
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 25:11 TOI · +3
N. Kadri
#91 · C · CGY
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 22:02 TOI · +1
M. Backlund
#11 · C · CGY
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 16:34 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • J. Daccord (SEA) stopped 1.4 goals above expected.
  • CGY was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 33 rush chances.
  • SEA was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 21 rush chances.
  • CGY created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · SEA at CGY · 9:00 PM ET

Kraken at Flames: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 10:04 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
CGY
Model favorite
47%
53%
SEA50CGY

CGY by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.42.5 CGY; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

SEA← edge
edge →CGY
46.0%5v5 xG%47.0%
45.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.13xGF / 602.36
2.51xGA / 602.66
1.87Goals for / gm1.76
1.95Goals against / gm2.15
1.011PDO — luck, not skill0.985

The season numbers split 33 — no clear process edge — and PDO (1.011 vs 0.985) says SEA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters