Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Wed, Dec 31 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at CGY

D. Wolf stands tall as the Flames edge the Flyers

FinalWed, Dec 31
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1CGYCalgary Flames5
The verdict · earned

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

PHI 1 · CGY 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:39 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

D. Wolf stole this game.

The Flames won 5-1, which looks like a demolition, but the underlying numbers suggest Wolf did the demolishing. He faced 26 shots and stopped all of them—a perfect 1.000 SV%—and saved 2.98 goals above expected. For context, that's elite. Calgary's underlying dominance backed the result: they controlled 56% of 5v5 expected goals (3.80–2.98) while holding the Flyers to 49% of shot attempts (26–27).

But the Flames overperformed their own xG by 1.20 goals—they scored 5 on just 3.80 xG. That gap is Wolf. On the flip side, S. Ersson (PHI) underperformed by 1.20 goals against his expected performance.

The Flames were lethal on the rush: three goals on 24 chances. They also banked three goals from low-danger areas—the kind opposing tenders are supposed to steal. Calgary's power play was another weapon: 2 goals on 11 shots (1.27 xG). The Flyers generated six rebound opportunities but converted zero; Calgary crashed effectively for four rebounds and one goal.

Execution was Calgary's edge. Wolf was its punctuation.

Final: PHI 1 – CGY 5

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 31
PHI
1
CGY
5

D. Wolf stands tall as the Flames edge the Flyers

Chances 3.0 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.98
CGY
3.80
44% of the chances56%

The board read PHI 1, CGY 5. The chances read PHI 3.0, CGY 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
+1.2
goals above expected
CGY3.80 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI2.98 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers left 2.0 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 13:30CGYM. Backlund0–1
  2. P2 03:08CGYJ. Huberdeau0–2
  3. P2 08:49PHIT. Konecny1–2
  4. P2 12:03CGYR. AnderssonPP1–3
  5. P2 17:52CGYY. SharangovichPP1–4
  6. P3 09:37CGYC. Zary1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
42 shots
1
Final
87 shots
CGY
45 shots
5
PHI attackCGY attack
PHI CGY Goal
42
shots · 1 in
45
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHICGY
0 / 3
0.70 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.53 xG
0 / 14
1.57 xG
Medium
1 / 18
1.82 xG
1 / 44
0.70 xG
Low
3 / 42
0.45 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Wolf
+3.0
CGY · 26/26
D-
S. Ersson
−1.2
PHI · 21/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

D. Wolf stands tall as the Flames edge the Flyers

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 4–3
  1. 13:30CGYM. Backlund(M. Coronato, B. Coleman)0–1
2ndshots 11–13
  1. 03:08CGYJ. Huberdeau(M. Weegar, Y. Kuznetsov)0–2
  2. 08:49PHIT. Konecny1–2
  3. 12:03CGYR. Anderssonpower play(C. Zary, N. Kadri)1–3
  4. 17:52CGYY. Sharangovichpower play(M. Coronato, M. Weegar)1–4
3rdshots 12–10
  1. 09:37CGYC. Zary(R. Lomberg)1–5

score reads PHI–CGY

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.80
CGY chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.059
CGY puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
52.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.98Expected goals3.80
CGY 56% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal26
3High-danger chances6
61All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: PHI 54% · CGY 46%
Faceoffs · CGY won48%off65%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI0 / 3 · 0.70 xG
CGY1 / 6 · 1.53 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI0 / 14 · 1.57 xG
CGY1 / 18 · 1.82 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI1 / 44 · 0.70 xG
CGY3 / 42 · 0.45 xG

CGY went 3-for-42 from low danger on 0.45 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
1 G · 2.98 xG · -2.0
CGY
5 G · 3.80 xG · +1.2
0123456

PHI finished -2.0 against expected, CGY +1.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST0/19
SLAP0/7
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER1/20
CGY
WRIST0/26
SLAP3/8
SNAP2/7
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/21
PHI
CGY
Off the rush
0 G on 23
1.87 xG
3 G on 24
1.93 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
0.62 xG
1 G on 4
0.92 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 0-for-19, CGY 0-for-26. CGY 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
S. Ersson
PHI · 21/26 · .808
-1.2
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.5+0.5
Medium1/181.8+0.8
Low3/420.5-2.5

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

D. Wolf
CGY · 26/26 · 1.000
+3.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium0/141.6+1.6
Low1/440.7-0.3

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
42 shots
1
Final
87 shots
CGY
45 shots
5
PHI attackCGY attack
PHI CGY Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI 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
M. Weegar
#52 · D · CGY
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 23:32 on ice · +2
M. Coronato
#27 · R · CGY
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:27 on ice · +1
C. Zary
#47 · C · CGY
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 11:34 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Dec 31
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:37 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 2.5–2.4 Philadelphia win with the Flyers at 51% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. Philadelphia dominates expected goals at 51.0% 5v5 xG versus Calgary's 47.0%, signaling superior shot quality. But that edge inverts in volume: Calgary controls 49.0% Corsi to Philadelphia's 48.0%. Here's the wrinkle: Calgary's 0.985 PDO reveals a team running cold on both finishing and goaltending. Both regress toward average, which could tighten this projection.

Watch the crease. D. Wolf starts this on the second half of a back-to-back—expect either a backup or a starter fighting fatigue. That variable alone could be decisive.

The offensive axis centers on two clear threats per side. Owen Tippett leads Philadelphia with 19 goals on 0.88 xG per 60, buoyed by a 12.1% shooting rate that sits well above average. Christian Dvorak runs 0.81 xG per 60 at an 11.2% conversion, offering a secondary elite scorer. Calgary's Blake Coleman presents the most balanced threat: 16 goals, 0.89 xG per 60, 11.4% shooting. Matt Coronato operates on a wider margin between opportunity and output—10 goals on 0.80 xG per 60, converting at just 6.6%—either pressing or primed for correction. Tippett's combination of volume and elite finishing makes him the preview's premier scorer.

The underlying numbers favor Philadelphia, but Calgary's PDO lag provides an opening. Flip a coin.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 51%
51%
PHI
Model favorite
51%
49%
PHI50CGY

PHI by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.5–2.4 CGY; 19% 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
PHI← edge
edge →CGY
51.0%47.0%
48.0%49.0%
2.262.36
2.202.66
1.961.76
1.822.15
1.0080.985

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.985) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PHI
4-2-4
+2 GD · 2d rest
CGY
7-3-0
+5 GD · 1d rest
1.008
PHI 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 Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
2 days rest.889 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CGY
Expected in goal
D. Wolf
back-to-back.962 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
PHI
Owen Tippett19G 18A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.1% sh
Christian Dvorak12G 21A
0.81 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.2% 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