Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
Breakdown · CGY at PIT

Flames steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Flames stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.98–2.90 and won anyway.

CGY 2 · PIT 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:03 AMxG: 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

Calgary won this game by refusing to lose it. The Flames edged Pittsburgh 2-1 despite ceding 59% of expected goals at 5v5—a margin that translates to one full goal. The Penguins controlled the shot map (53% of attempts), dominated high-danger chances (4-2), and built a 2.90–1.98 xG advantage. None of it mattered.

D. Cooley kept Calgary ahead when the scoreboard said otherwise. He stopped 27 of 28 shots at 0.964 SV%, earning 1.90 goals above expected—the difference between a tie and a theft. A. Silovs faced 25 shots and saved 23, posting a 0.920 mark. Pittsburgh's night in one statistic: quality chances wasted.

In the third period at 00:42, Matt Coronato fired a wrist shot from the high slot. That was it.

Calgary was lethal on the rush, converting 2 goals from 20 chances. Pittsburgh underperformed their xG by 1.90 goals. High-danger chances don't win games; goals do.

  • #4 R. Andersson (CGY) — 1A in 25:04
  • #11 M. Backlund (CGY) — 1A in 19:37
  • #27 M. Coronato (CGY) — 1G in 19:15
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 10
CGY
2
PIT
1

Flames steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

Chances 2.0 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
1.98
PIT
2.90
41% of the chances59%

The board read CGY 2, PIT 1. The chances read CGY 2.0, PIT 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
+0.0
goals above expected
CGY1.98 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT2.90 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 1.9 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 02:33CGYC. Zary1–0
  2. P2 09:17PITE. Chinakhov1–1
  3. P3 00:42CGYM. Coronato2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
35 shots
2
Final
74 shots
PIT
39 shots
1
CGY attackPIT attack
CGY PIT Goal
35
shots · 2 in
39
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYPIT
0 / 2
0.48 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.95 xG
1 / 8
0.77 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.35 xG
1 / 42
0.73 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.60 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Cooley
+1.9
CGY · 27/28
C
A. Silovs
−0.0
PIT · 23/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

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 9–5
  1. 02:33CGYC. Zary1–0
2ndshots 6–11
  1. 09:17PITE. Chinakhov(E. Malkin, B. Kindel)1–1
3rdshots 10–12
  1. 00:42CGYM. Coronato(R. Andersson, M. Backlund)2–1

score reads CGY–PIT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
1.98
CGY chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.022
CGY puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.98Expected goals2.90
PIT 59% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal28
2High-danger chances4
52All attempts (Corsi)59
Adjusted for score: CGY 44% · PIT 56%
Faceoffs · PIT won63%off47%neu58%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CGY0 / 2 · 0.48 xG
PIT0 / 4 · 0.95 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CGY1 / 8 · 0.77 xG
PIT1 / 13 · 1.35 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CGY1 / 42 · 0.73 xG
PIT0 / 42 · 0.60 xG

PIT went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.95 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CGY
2 G · 1.98 xG · +0.0
PIT
1 G · 2.90 xG · -1.9
01234

CGY finished +0.0 against expected, PIT -1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CGY
WRIST2/22
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/1
OTHER0/17
PIT
WRIST1/25
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP0/1
OTHER0/20
CGY
PIT
Off the rush
2 G on 20
1.48 xG
1 G on 26
2.02 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.01 xG
0 G on 2
0.29 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 2-for-22, PIT 1-for-25. CGY 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. Cooley
CGY · 27/28 · .964
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.9+0.9
Medium1/131.4+0.3
Low0/420.6+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

A. Silovs
PIT · 23/25 · .920
-0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium1/80.8-0.2
Low1/420.7-0.3

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

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CGY
35 shots
2
Final
74 shots
PIT
39 shots
1
CGY attackPIT attack
CGY PIT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, PIT 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 · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:04 on ice · +1
M. Backlund
#11 · C · CGY
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:37 on ice · +1
M. Coronato
#27 · R · CGY
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 19:15 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 10
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:03 AMEdited 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 favors Pittsburgh at 56% win probability, projecting a 2.5 to 2.8 goal range. That lean rests on a clean underlying advantage: the Penguins generate 51.0% of expected goals at 5v5 to Calgary's 47.0%, a nearly 4-point edge that translates to shot quality and dominance.

Corsi percentages tell the same story, with Pittsburgh holding 50.0% to Calgary's 49.0%, but the xG gap is the real edge — it means the Penguins are creating better chances, not just more volume.

Calgary's vulnerability isn't tonight's play but the reckoning behind it. The Flames are running a 0.985 PDO, the mark of a team skating cold against the expected outcomes model. Positive regression is statistical debt coming due; expect PDO lift to tighten margins.

Both goalies face back-to-back scheduling. S. Skinner starts for Calgary; D. Wolf starts for Pittsburgh. Fatigue in the crease isn't always visible in the stat sheet, but it shapes decision-making in tight moments.

The Penguins' attack centers on depth. Filip Hallander, their high-danger specialist, is likely unavailable (conditioning recall ongoing), but Rickard Rakell absorbs that load. Rakell owns 1.01 xG/60 with 13 goals and 13 assists, and he's converting at 12.1% — a mark just close enough to sustainability that his 3 high-danger goals matter. He's the engine this team runs on.

Calgary counters with Blake Coleman, a forward averaging 0.89 xG/60 with 16 goals and 12 assists. Two of those goals came from high-danger chances, and an 11.4% shooting rate suggests he's above the random-variance line. Matt Coronato (0.80 xG/60, 10 goals, 16 assists) is the secondary threat but shoots just 6.6% — a gap that signals regression risk and suggests the Flames are manufacturing offense through effort rather than precision.

The model's 56% lean on Pittsburgh holds because underlying play, not score effects, is what the projection reads. Calgary will get regression help from PDO, but that's a countervailing edge, not a dominant one. The Penguins, once Hallander is healthy, have the infrastructure to sustain this play. Tonight, though, Rakell and Pittsburgh's depth carry the advantage.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 56%
56%
PIT
Model favorite
44%
56%
CGY50PIT

PIT by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.5–2.8 PIT; 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 →PIT
47.0%51.0%
49.0%50.0%
2.362.66
2.662.55
1.762.45
2.152.12
0.9851.012

PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CGY
5-5-0
-4 GD · 1d rest
PIT
7-3-0
+6 GD · 1d rest
0.985
CGY PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Penguins 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 Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • S. Skinner is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • 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
CGY
Expected in goal
D. Wolf
back-to-back.867 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.

PIT
Expected in goal
S. Skinner
back-to-back.966 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next