Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
Breakdown · CGY at CBJ

Blue Jackets hold off the Flames

The verdict · earned

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

CGY 3 · CBJ 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:37 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

The Flames had more high-danger chances and still lost 5-3 — a classic goaltending story masking a deeper control loss. Underlying metrics showed a closer game than the scoreboard suggests, but CBJ's superior shot management and J. Greaves' dominance made the difference.

The Blue Jackets controlled the game on volume. They held 57% of shot attempts (43–32 on goal), though expected goals split narrowly: 5.97–5.15 in their favor, a 54–46 edge. The Flames generated 12 high-danger chances to CBJ's 9, yet were outscored 5-3 — a gap explained almost entirely by goaltending.

J. Greaves saved 2.15 goals above expected on 29 saves, posting a 0.906 SV%. He was exceptional on high-danger looks: 92% save rate on 12 shots from prime scoring areas. D. Wolf stopped 1.97 goals above expected for Calgary but faced fewer premium chances and couldn't overcome CBJ's rush attack.

The Blue Jackets were ruthless in transition, scoring 4 goals on 36 rush chances. They also scored twice from low-danger areas, opportunities Wolf should have had. The Flames underperformed their 5.15 xG by 2.15 goals, wasting their high-danger chances. CBJ underperformed slightly too (by 0.97), but their volume advantage and superior goaltending absorbed it.

C. Coyle's wrist shot from the slot in the third period (19:57) was the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 13
CGY
3
CBJ
5

Blue Jackets hold off the Flames

Chances 5.2 – 6.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
5.15
CBJ
5.97
46% of the chances54%

The board read CGY 3, CBJ 5. The chances read CGY 5.2, CBJ 6.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
−1.0
goals above expected
CBJ5.97 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY5.15 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flames left 2.1 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 03:57CBJD. Fabbro0–1
  2. P1 13:24CBJC. Coyle0–2
  3. P2 12:00CGYM. FrostPP1–2
  4. P2 19:18CGYR. AnderssonPP2–2
  5. P3 04:46CBJZ. WerenskiPP2–3
  6. P3 10:05CGYM. BacklundPP3–3
  7. P3 18:26CBJB. Jenner3–4
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
44 shots
3
Final
106 shots
CBJ
62 shots
5
CGY attackCBJ attack
CGY CBJ Goal
44
shots · 3 in
62
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYCBJ
1 / 12
3.68 xG
High danger
1 / 9
3.11 xG
1 / 8
0.93 xG
Medium
2 / 18
1.96 xG
1 / 40
0.53 xG
Low
2 / 47
0.90 xG

High-danger looks: CGY 1 of 12, CBJ 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Greaves
+2.1
CBJ · 29/32
A
D. Wolf
+2.0
CGY · 38/42
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets hold off the Flames

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 8–10
  1. 03:57CBJD. Fabbro(Z. Werenski, C. Coyle)0–1
  2. 13:24CBJC. Coyle(J. Christiansen, D. Voronkov)0–2
2ndshots 7–14
  1. 12:00CGYM. Frostpower play(M. Backlund, Y. Sharangovich)1–2
  2. 19:18CGYR. Anderssonpower play(Y. Sharangovich, C. Zary)2–2
3rdshots 17–19
  1. 04:46CBJZ. Werenskipower play(A. Fantilli, K. Marchenko)2–3
  2. 10:05CGYM. Backlundpower play(M. Frost, C. Zary)3–3
  3. 18:26CBJB. Jenner3–4
  4. 19:57CBJC. Coyleempty net(B. Jenner, Z. Werenski)3–5

score reads CGY–CBJ

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.97
CBJ chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.018
CBJ puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
55.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.15Expected goals5.97
CBJ 54% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal43
12High-danger chances9
60All attempts (Corsi)74
Adjusted for score: CGY 49% · CBJ 51%
Faceoffs · CBJ won55%off67%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CGY1 / 12 · 3.68 xG
CBJ1 / 9 · 3.11 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CGY1 / 8 · 0.93 xG
CBJ2 / 18 · 1.96 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CGY1 / 40 · 0.53 xG
CBJ2 / 47 · 0.90 xG

CGY went 1-for-12 from high danger on 3.68 expected goals — 2.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CGY
3 G · 5.15 xG · -2.1
CBJ
5 G · 5.97 xG · -1.0
01234567

CGY finished -2.1 against expected, CBJ -1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CGY
SNAP0/14
WRIST0/13
BACKHAND2/5
SLAP1/4
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/4
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/2
OTHER0/16
CBJ
SNAP4/27
WRIST1/19
BACKHAND0/6
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/12
CGY
CBJ
Off the rush
1 G on 23
1.93 xG
4 G on 36
3.58 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 12
2.81 xG
0 G on 8
1.77 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CGY went 0-for-14, CBJ 4-for-27. CBJ scored 4 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 · 38/42 · .905
+2.0
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/93.1+2.1
Medium2/182.0-0.0
Low2/470.9-1.1

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. Greaves
CBJ · 29/32 · .906
+2.1
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/123.7+2.7
Medium1/80.9-0.1
Low1/400.5-0.5

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

106 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CGY
44 shots
3
Final
106 shots
CBJ
62 shots
5
CGY attackCBJ attack
CGY CBJ Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, CBJ 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
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 27:45 on ice · +2
C. Coyle
#3 · C · CBJ
2 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 18:12 on ice · +3
M. Backlund
#11 · C · CGY
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:31 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 13
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:48 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 projects a 2.4–2.8 goal game favoring Columbus, with the Blue Jackets carrying a 57% win probability. That edge exists because Columbus owns the underlying play, not because of fluky shooting.

Columbus has generated 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals this season, against Calgary's 47.0%. Corsi reinforces it: 51.0% to 49.0%. The Blue Jackets create better scoring chances and allow fewer of them. This is not close. Calgary's -5 goal differential over its last 10 games underscores how badly the Flames have managed—they're not losing close ones; they're losing the possession battle and paying the price.

The regression watch tips the scale further toward Columbus. Calgary is running a 0.985 PDO, meaning the Flames are shooting and getting goaltended at rates well below expectation. That delta will normalize. Columbus sits at 1.003 PDO, just above neutral. When Calgary's unsustainably cold shooting regresses upward tonight, this game should tighten. But before it does, the Blue Jackets are the play.

Rest compounds the advantage in the wrong direction for the Flames. Columbus carries one day of rest into the matchup; Calgary gets three. Rest advantages matter when teams are close in skill—they don't reverse quality differentials. J. Greaves plays on a back-to-back for Columbus, a concern if he starts and less so if the backup gets the call. Either way, it's a secondary variable.

Columbus's offensive foundation is overwhelming. Boone Jenner generates 0.98 expected goals per 60 minutes at 5v5 and has posted 11 goals and 21 assists. Mathieu Olivier runs 0.89 xG/60 with 12 goals and 13.3% shooting—he's converting at rates that won't hold but is winning games now. Calgary counters with Blake Coleman, who has posted 0.89 xG/60, 16 goals, and 12 assists at an 11.4% shooting clip. That's elite, but Coleman is also running unsustainably hot. Matt Coronato (0.80 xG/60, 10 goals, 6.6% shooting) has cooled and looks due for a bounce-back.

The tactical picture for Calgary is stopping the Jenner line from dictating tempo. For Columbus, it's respecting Coleman and Coronato as dangerous even if Coronato's shooting percentage suggests regression. Conor Garland emerges as Calgary's defensive weak link—Columbus should hunt for mismatches there.

The verdict holds: Columbus is the lean. The model sees it, the underlying numbers confirm it, and PDO regression works in the Blue Jackets' favor tonight.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 57%
57%
CBJ
Model favorite
43%
57%
CGY50CBJ

CBJ by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.4–2.8 CBJ; 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 →CBJ
47.0%52.0%
49.0%51.0%
2.362.63
2.662.43
1.762.12
2.151.98
0.9851.003

CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.003) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CGY
5-5-0
-5 GD · 3d rest
CBJ
5-4-1
+1 GD · 1d rest
0.985
CGY PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • J. Greaves is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Flames are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Flames have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CGY
Expected in goal
D. Cooley
3 days rest.964 last start
Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CBJ
Expected in goal
J. Greaves
back-to-back.926 last start
Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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
CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
Keep going

Where to next