Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater

Breakdown · CGY at MTL

Canadiens run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalWed, Jan 7

CGYCalgary Flames1 MTLMontreal Canadiens4

The verdict · earned

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

CGY 1 · MTL 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:43 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

Montreal demolished Calgary 4-1, but the scoreline understates Montreal's control. Calgary's underlying metrics tell a more painful story: they underperformed their expected goals by 1.50—a gap that swallowed their scoring deficit.

The Canadiens earned dominance with legitimate firepower. They generated 4.46 expected goals to Calgary's 2.50, a 64-36 split confirming Montreal's 36-29 shot-attempt advantage translates to play-driving superiority. High-danger chances went 8-3—Montreal created twice as many opportunities from prime real estate.

But Calgary's collapse wasn't just volume. The Flames generated fewer shots (29 vs. 36) yet maintained sharper efficiency: 0.042 xG per shot against Montreal's 0.070. That 1.50-goal underperformance suggests poor finishing—a team that squandered higher-quality looks through execution failure.

Montreal's other advantage was J. Fowler in net. The goaltender saved 1.50 goals above expected through consistent positioning. Against a team that generated 2.50 xG but scored once, Fowler's outperformance meant the difference between close and rout.

The Canadiens' efficiency mattered too. They converted their dominant play into 4 goals on 4.46 xG, indicating quality generation and clean finishing. A. Texier (1G, 2A in 13:57) and C. Caufield (1G, 1A in 14:43) drove Montreal's offense, while L. Hutson (1G in 23:29) contributed from the backend.

Calgary's underlying play—higher shot quality, competitive xG-per-attempt—offers small consolation. They came to play but couldn't land punches. Montreal's depth of advantage made the scoreboard align with reality.

#85 A. Texier (MTL) — 1G, 2A in 13:57
#13 C. Caufield (MTL) — 1G, 1A in 14:43
#48 L. Hutson (MTL) — 1G in 23:29

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 7

CGY

MTL

Canadiens run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CGY

2.50

MTL

4.46

36% of the chances64%

The board read CGY 1, MTL 4. The chances read CGY 2.5, MTL 4.5.

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

Luck check

MTL

−0.5

goals above expected

MTL4.46 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CGY2.50 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Flames left 1.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P2 03:10MTLA. Texier0–1
P2 07:05MTLL. Hutson0–2
P2 08:12MTLO. Kapanen0–3
P2 17:39CGYJ. Farabee1–3
P3 03:56MTLC. Caufield1–4

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

Where the shots came from

CGY

41 shots

Final

91 shots

MTL

50 shots

CGY MTL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CGYMTL

0 / 3

0.81 xG

High danger

2 / 8

1.99 xG

0 / 11

1.04 xG

Medium

1 / 14

1.63 xG

1 / 46

0.65 xG

Low

1 / 42

0.84 xG

The Flames went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

J. Fowler

+1.5

MTL · 28/29

D. Wolf

+0.5

CGY · 32/36

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Canadiens 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 7–14no goals

2ndshots 14–10

03:10MTLA. Texier(A. Carrier, C. Caufield)0–1
07:05MTLL. Hutson(P. Danault, A. Texier)0–2
08:12MTLO. Kapanen(J. Slafkovský)0–3
17:39CGYJ. Farabee(Y. Sharangovich, H. Brzustewicz)1–3

3rdshots 8–12

03:56MTLC. Caufield(A. Texier, N. Suzuki)1–4

score reads CGY–MTL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.46

MTL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.5

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.046

MTL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

51.6%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.50Expected goals4.46

MTL 64% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal36

3High-danger chances8

60All attempts (Corsi)64

Adjusted for score: CGY 53% · MTL 47%

Faceoffs · MTL won38%off61%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CGY0 / 3 · 0.81 xG

MTL2 / 8 · 1.99 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CGY0 / 11 · 1.04 xG

MTL1 / 14 · 1.63 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CGY1 / 46 · 0.65 xG

MTL1 / 42 · 0.84 xG

CGY went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.04 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CGY

1 G · 2.50 xG · -1.5

MTL

4 G · 4.46 xG · -0.5

012345

CGY finished -1.5 against expected, MTL -0.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CGY

SNAP1/25

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/2

WRIST0/6

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/19

MTL

SNAP3/35

SLAP1/5

TIP IN0/6

WRIST0/1

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/14

CGY

MTL

Off the rush

1 G on 24

2.06 xG

2 G on 31

3.08 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

1 G on 4

0.62 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CGY went 1-for-25, MTL 3-for-35. MTL scored 2 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 · 32/36 · .889

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/82.0-0.0

Medium1/141.6+0.6

Low1/420.8-0.2

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

J. Fowler

MTL · 28/29 · .966

+1.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.8+0.8

Medium0/111.0+1.0

Low1/460.7-0.3

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

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CGY

41 shots

Final

91 shots

MTL

50 shots

CGY MTL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, MTL 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

A. Texier

#85 · L · MTL

1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 13:57 on ice · +3

C. Caufield

#13 · R · MTL

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 14:43 on ice · +2

L. Hutson

#48 · D · MTL

1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 23:29 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Jan 7

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:41 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 2.5–2.7 expected-goal game and gives Montreal a 53% win probability—the definition of a pick'em.

At 5-on-5, these teams are analytically interchangeable. Calgary sits at 47.0% expected goals; Montreal at 48.0%—a gap smaller than margin of error. Corsi runs 49.0% for both. Where they diverge is process-to-results alignment. Montreal's 1.018 PDO means their actual goals exceed what their shot quality typically produces. The Canadiens are running hot, a performance sustained only by variance that will regress. Calgary's 0.985 PDO tells the opposite story: their results lag their shot quality. They're cold and due for positive regression—a team whose underlying talent should eventually catch up.

Montreal's rest advantage is the wrinkle. The Canadiens arrive on three full days off; Calgary on one. That edge sharpens considerably if D. Wolf operates on back-to-back fatigue or loses the start to a backup, scenarios that would further degrade Calgary's goaltending.

Calgary's attack centers on Blake Coleman (16G, 12A, 0.89 xG/60, 11.4% shooting, 2 high-danger goals) and Matt Coronato (10G, 16A, 0.80 xG/60, 6.6% shooting). Coleman's 11.4% shooting rate represents sustainable production; Coronato's 6.6% signals positive variance ahead. Montreal counters with Cole Caufield (33G, 16A, 0.97 xG/60, 20.0% shooting, 1 high-danger goal) and Oliver Kapanen (19G, 12A, 0.83 xG/60, 17.8% shooting, 4 high-danger goals). Caufield operates at 20.0%—rarefied company. Kapanen at 17.8% is similarly elite. Both Canadiens finishers are ahead of their variance curves; both Flames scorers are running cold.

Defensively, each team has a weak link. Calgary's Coronato carries back-end liability despite his scoring; Montreal's Mike Matheson represents structural vulnerability. Both teams sit at 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound rates this season—symmetrical zeroes suggesting neither has capitalized on second chances.

Weighed together: Montreal holds a material edge in rest and regression direction. Calgary is due for upside; Montreal vulnerable to correction. But one day of rest is not destiny, and due regression is not guaranteed. The model knows this balance. A coin flip it remains.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MTL 53%

53%

MTL

Model favorite

47%

53%

CGY50MTL

MTL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.5–2.7 MTL; 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 →MTL

47.0%48.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.362.41

2.662.62

1.762.24

2.151.96

0.9851.018

MTL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CGY

6-4-0

+0 GD · 1d rest

MTL

6-2-2

+8 GD · 3d rest

0.985

CGY PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.018

MTL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Canadiens have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CGY

Expected in goal

D. Wolf

back-to-back.852 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.

MTL

Expected in goal

S. Montembeault

3 days rest.889 last start

Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 GSAx this season

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

MTL

Cole Caufield33G 16A

0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh

Oliver Kapanen19G 12A

0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page