Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Thu, Jan 15 · the slate
Breakdown · CGY at CHI

Flames hold off the Blackhawks

FinalThu, Jan 15
CGYCalgary Flames3CHIChicago Blackhawks1
The verdict · earned

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

CGY 3 · CHI 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:58 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's 3-1 victory masks an otherwise even game — the Flames held a 2.98–2.49 expected-goals edge in a matchup that split 23–23 in shot attempts. Chicago underperformed its xG by 1.49 goals, the difference between a close contest and a decisive final score.

The Blackhawks generated chances but finished poorly. High-danger attempts went 4–3; Chicago converted once while Calgary buried theirs with greater efficiency. D. Cooley (CGY) saved 22 of 23 at a 0.957 SV%, outperforming his expected baseline by 1.49 goals. S. Knight (CHI) faced 22 shots and allowed 3 (0.909 SV%), a comparable save rate that proved insufficient against Calgary's execution.

Matt Coronato's wrist shot from the point at 18:59 of the first period marked the turning point.

M. Backlund (CGY) led with 1 goal and 1 assist in 20:07. Y. Sharangovich (CGY) added 1 goal and 1 assist in 16:51. C. Zary (CGY) contributed 1 assist in 19:47.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 15
CGY
3
CHI
1

Flames hold off the Blackhawks

Chances 3.0 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
2.98
CHI
2.49
54% of the chances46%

The board read CGY 3, CHI 1. The chances read CGY 3.0, CHI 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
+0.0
goals above expected
CGY2.98 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.49 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 02:38CHIN. Foligno0–1
  2. P1 03:14CGYY. SharangovichPP1–1
  3. P1 06:05CGYM. BacklundSH2–1
  4. P3 18:59CGYM. CoronatoEN3–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
32 shots
3
Final
67 shots
CHI
35 shots
1
CGY attackCHI attack
CGY CHI Goal
32
shots · 3 in
35
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYCHI
1 / 3
1.08 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.82 xG
1 / 11
1.25 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.22 xG
1 / 39
0.65 xG
Low
0 / 32
0.44 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Cooley
+1.5
CGY · 22/23
B+
S. Knight
+1.0
CHI · 20/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames hold off the Blackhawks

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 6–9
  1. 02:38CHIN. Foligno(C. Dach, L. Slaggert)0–1
  2. 03:14CGYY. Sharangovichpower play(M. Backlund, C. Zary)1–1
  3. 06:05CGYM. Backlundshorthanded2–1
2ndshots 11–9no goals
    3rdshots 6–5
    1. 18:59CGYM. Coronatoempty net(Y. Sharangovich)3–1

    score reads CGY–CHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.98
    CGY chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.0
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.035
    CGY puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    53.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.98Expected goals2.49
    CGY 54% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal23
    3High-danger chances4
    53All attempts (Corsi)47
    Adjusted for score: CGY 50% · CHI 51%
    Faceoffs · CHI won53%off53%neu58%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CGY1 / 3 · 1.08 xG
    CHI0 / 4 · 0.82 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CGY1 / 11 · 1.25 xG
    CHI1 / 11 · 1.22 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CGY1 / 39 · 0.65 xG
    CHI0 / 32 · 0.44 xG

    CHI went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.82 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CGY
    3 G · 2.98 xG · +0.0
    CHI
    1 G · 2.49 xG · -1.5
    01234

    CGY finished +0.0 against expected, CHI -1.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CGY
    WRIST2/17
    SLAP0/6
    BACKHAND0/5
    TIP IN0/2
    SNAP1/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    BETWEEN LEGS0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/21
    CHI
    WRIST1/25
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/1
    SNAP0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BETWEEN LEGS0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/12
    CGY
    CHI
    Off the rush
    1 G on 22
    1.90 xG
    1 G on 19
    1.72 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 2
    0.22 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.40 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 2-for-17, CHI 1-for-25.

    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 · 22/23 · .957
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.8+0.8
    Medium1/111.2+0.2
    Low0/320.4+0.4

    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

    S. Knight
    CHI · 20/22 · .909
    +1.0
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/31.1+0.1
    Medium1/111.3+0.3
    Low1/390.7-0.3

    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

    67 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CGY
    32 shots
    3
    Final
    67 shots
    CHI
    35 shots
    1
    CGY attackCHI attack
    CGY CHI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, CHI 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. Backlund
    #11 · C · CGY
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:07 on ice · +2
    Y. Sharangovich
    #17 · C · CGY
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:51 on ice · +1
    C. Zary
    #47 · C · CGY
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:47 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Jan 15
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:57 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 2.6–2.5 Flames victory with Calgary at 52% win probability. This is as close to a coin flip as hockey analytics provides.

    Calgary controls the underlying play decisively. At 5v5, the Flames generate a 47.0% expected goals percentage against Chicago's 42.0%, and their Corsi is 49.0% to the Blackhawks' 46.0%. This gap—five points wider in both measures—reflects genuine possession superiority. Calgary's PDO of 0.985 reveals the problem: the team is shooting cold. Over the past 10 games, the Flames sit -10 in goal differential. They create chances at an elite rate and cannot convert them. That disconnect between underlying metrics and results is where the 52% projection originates. Analytics suggest Calgary should win; execution suggests Chicago is stealing this one.

    Chicago's recent record inverts this narrative entirely. The Blackhawks are 6-3-1 over their last 10 with a PDO of 0.996, running hot while the Flames run cold. In the short term, finishing beats shot volume more reliably than models account for.

    Blake Coleman anchors Calgary's attack. He generates 0.89 expected goals per 60 minutes and has posted 16 goals, 12 assists, and 2 high-danger chances—his 11.4% shooting rate sits in sustainable territory. Matt Coronato operates at 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and 16 assists on 6.6% shooting, suggesting conversion upside if he regresses toward trend. Defensively, Coronato's gaps expose Calgary in transition.

    Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard. Bertuzzi's 0.85 xG/60 output has yielded 20 goals, 15 assists, and 7 high-danger chances, but his 18.0% shooting rate will not sustain. Bedard sits at 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals, 27 assists, and 5 high-danger chances; his 11.8% shooting rate approaches trend.

    The tactical battle is unambiguous. Calgary must neutralize Bertuzzi while finally converting the quality chances it generates. Chicago must limit Coleman while exploiting Calgary's structural vulnerabilities. Neither team has scored from high-danger or rebound situations recently, so finishing rate will be decisive.

    D. Wolf starts on a back-to-back for Calgary. If the Flames deploy a backup or face Wolf fatiguing, Chicago gains a material edge in an otherwise even matchup.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CGY 52%
    52%
    CGY
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    CGY50CHI

    CGY by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CGY 2.6–2.5 CHI; 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 →CHI
    47.0%42.0%
    49.0%46.0%
    2.362.17
    2.662.94
    1.761.84
    2.152.41
    0.9850.996

    CGY holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.996) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CGY
    4-6-0
    -10 GD · 1d rest
    CHI
    6-3-1
    -1 GD · 2d rest
    0.985
    CGY PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Flames own the underlying play — 47.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Flames own the underlying play — 47.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Blackhawks are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
    • The Flames are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
    • 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.905 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.

    CHI
    Expected in goal
    S. Knight
    2 days rest.917 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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
    CHI
    Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
    0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
    Connor Bedard17G 27A
    0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page