Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Tue, Dec 23 · the slate
Breakdown · CGY at EDM

Oilers run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Dec 23
CGYCalgary Flames1EDMEdmonton Oilers5
The verdict · earned

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

CGY 1 · EDM 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:51 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 Oilers beat Calgary 5-1 while controlling 67% of shot attempts (39–19). That efficiency—a decisive victory without dominating the volume—stems from shot quality. At 5v5 xG, Edmonton led 5.96–2.28 (72–28%), generating 12 high-danger chances to Calgary's 2. They converted 3 of 16 power-play shots (1.87 xG).

Both teams underperformed their expected goals. Edmonton scored 5 on an xG of 5.96 (0.96 short), while Calgary scored 1 on 2.28 xG (1.28 short). The Flames' underperformance was steeper, reflecting their inability to capitalize on inferior chances.

C. Ingram's goaltending reinforced the margin. He saved 1.28 goals above expected on 19 saves (0.947 SV%), while D. Wolf saved 0.96 on 39 shots but allowed 5. The shot quality gap is decisive: Edmonton generated 0.085 xG per shot; Calgary 0.044. Leon Draisaitl's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 05:38) epitomized Edmonton's precision.

Connor McDavid orchestrated with 5 assists in 20:37. Leon Draisaitl finished with 3 goals in 18:49. Zach Hyman added 1 goal and 2 assists in 17:11. Edmonton's dominance extended to net-front play: 5 rebound chances created, 2 converted. Calgary created 3 and scored on zero.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 23
CGY
1
EDM
5

Oilers run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.3 – 6.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
2.28
EDM
5.96
28% of the chances72%

The board read CGY 1, EDM 5. The chances read CGY 2.3, EDM 6.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
−1.0
goals above expected
EDM5.96 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY2.28 expected · 1 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
  1. P1 06:48EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins0–1
  2. P1 15:58CGYM. Weegar1–1
  3. P1 19:43EDML. DraisaitlPP1–2
  4. P2 01:59EDML. DraisaitlPP1–3
  5. P2 11:56EDMZ. Hyman1–4
  6. P3 05:38EDML. DraisaitlPP1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
31 shots
1
Final
85 shots
EDM
54 shots
5
CGY attackEDM attack
CGY EDM Goal
31
shots · 1 in
54
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYEDM
0 / 2
0.50 xG
High danger
3 / 12
2.99 xG
0 / 12
1.31 xG
Medium
2 / 21
2.38 xG
1 / 38
0.46 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.59 xG

The Oilers buried 3 of 12 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
C. Ingram
+1.3
EDM · 18/19
B+
D. Wolf
+1.0
CGY · 34/39
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers run the Flames 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 8–15
  1. 06:48EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins(E. Bouchard, C. McDavid)0–1
  2. 15:58CGYM. Weegar(M. Backlund)1–1
  3. 19:43EDML. Draisaitlpower play(Z. Hyman, C. McDavid)1–2
2ndshots 8–15
  1. 01:59EDML. Draisaitlpower play(C. McDavid, E. Bouchard)1–3
  2. 11:56EDMZ. Hyman(C. McDavid)1–4
3rdshots 3–9
  1. 05:38EDML. Draisaitlpower play(Z. Hyman, C. McDavid)1–5

score reads CGY–EDM

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.96
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.052
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
57.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.28Expected goals5.96
EDM 72% of the chance quality
19Shots on goal39
2High-danger chances12
52All attempts (Corsi)70
Adjusted for score: CGY 48% · EDM 52%
Faceoffs · EDM won53%off26%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CGY0 / 2 · 0.50 xG
EDM3 / 12 · 2.99 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CGY0 / 12 · 1.31 xG
EDM2 / 21 · 2.38 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CGY1 / 38 · 0.46 xG
EDM0 / 37 · 0.59 xG

CGY went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.31 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CGY
1 G · 2.28 xG · -1.3
EDM
5 G · 5.96 xG · -1.0
01234567

CGY finished -1.3 against expected, EDM -1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CGY
WRIST0/19
SNAP1/6
SLAP0/2
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/1
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/21
EDM
WRIST4/31
SNAP0/8
SLAP0/8
TIP IN1/3
BACKHAND0/3
BAT0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/16
CGY
EDM
Off the rush
1 G on 27
1.88 xG
3 G on 41
4.51 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.39 xG
2 G on 5
0.90 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 0-for-19, EDM 4-for-31. EDM 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
D. Wolf
CGY · 34/39 · .872
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/123.0-0.0
Medium2/212.4+0.4
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

C. Ingram
EDM · 18/19 · .947
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium0/121.3+1.3
Low1/380.5-0.5

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CGY
31 shots
1
Final
85 shots
EDM
54 shots
5
CGY attackEDM attack
CGY EDM Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, EDM 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
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
0 G · 5 A · 6 SOG · 20:37 on ice · +1
L. Draisaitl
#29 · C · EDM
3 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 18:49 on ice
Z. Hyman
#18 · L · EDM
1 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 17:11 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 23
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:49 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

Edmonton owns this game on the forecast. The model projects a 2.4–2.8 Oilers win with 56% win probability, built on a clean advantage in underlying shot quality.

The edges are structural. Edmonton's 5v5 xG% sits at 52.0% against Calgary's 47.0%—a three-percentage-point gap that compounds over 60 minutes. Corsi% tightens it slightly (Edmonton 50.0%, Calgary 49.0%), meaning the Oilers dominate volume and efficiency both. This is not a lucky team squeaking past a hot one; this is the better team getting better looks.

Both squads are running cold at exactly the moment cold reverses. Edmonton's PDO of 0.982 and Calgary's 0.985 are both depressed—shooting and save percentage moving together to suppress results below what underlying play predicts. Regression is coming for both. If you are fading PDO outliers, you want Edmonton here, the team with the edge in the fundamentals to capitalize on positive variance.

A wrinkle: C. Ingram is on a back-to-back. Watch whether Calgary starts the backup or leans on a tired starter.

Calgary's offense runs through Blake Coleman, whose 0.89 xG/60 and 16 goals with 12 assists anchor the attack. He has just 2 high-danger chances and an 11.4% shooting rate—efficient, not high-volume. Matt Coronato pairs alongside at 0.80 xG/60, a 6.6% shooter, with 10 goals and 16 assists. Neither is generating volume, which matters against an Edmonton team that can suppress shots.

Edmonton counters with Zach Hyman at 1.23 xG/60—a full-line upgrade over Coleman in shot volume. Hyman has 14 goals and 13 assists with 1 high-danger chance and a 13.0% shot rate. But the star is Connor McDavid, who sits at 0.92 xG/60 with 25 goals and 33 assists, 5 high-danger chances, and 13.7% shooting. McDavid's rates are lower than Hyman's because he works as a playmaker—he creates for others more than himself. Against a Calgary team with 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, Edmonton's playmakers find plenty of secondary chances.

The model sees it clearly. Edmonton has the shot quality, the volume edge, and the regression wind at their back. Calgary will need Ingram sharp and fresh—a test they may already be failing.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 56%
56%
EDM
Model favorite
44%
56%
CGY50EDM

EDM by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.4–2.8 EDM; 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 →EDM
47.0%52.0%
49.0%50.0%
2.362.64
2.662.47
1.762.13
2.152.29
0.9850.982

EDM holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.982) says CGY has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CGY
6-3-1
+5 GD · 2d rest
EDM
7-2-1
+13 GD · 1d rest
0.985
CGY PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • C. Ingram is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — 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.919 last start
Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

EDM
Expected in goal
C. Ingram
back-to-back.903 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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.

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
EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page