Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater

Breakdown · CGY at MIN

Wild pull away from the Flames

FinalThu, Jan 29

The verdict · earned

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

CGY 1 · MIN 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:17 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 out-attempted Minnesota 30–24 and still lost 4–1. The Flames' inability to convert volume into goals exposed a fundamental quality gap: Minnesota's shots carried 0.064 expected goals per attempt to Calgary's 0.045. That disparity defined the game.

The underlying control backed Minnesota's margin. The Wild dominated 56% of 5v5 expected goals (3.63–2.86) while holding a 5–2 edge in high-danger chances. Calgary underperformed their xG by 1.86 goals, a gap partly due to self-inflicted wounds—four rebound opportunities created, zero converted.

F. Gustavsson stopped the rest. The Wild's goaltender posted a 0.967 SV% (29 of 30 saves), saving 1.86 goals above expected. When a starter delivers that in a 4–1 game, the scoreline becomes a footnote to his performance.

Minnesota's precision showed throughout. They converted 2 of 5 high-danger chances (40%) and scored three goals off the rush on 25 attempts. K. Kaprizov opened the scoring with a wrist shot from the wing at 17:45 of the first period, setting the tone early.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 29

CGY

MIN

Wild pull away from the Flames

Chances 2.9 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CGY

2.86

MIN

3.63

44% of the chances56%

The board read CGY 1, MIN 4. The chances read CGY 2.9, MIN 3.6.

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

Luck check

MIN

+0.4

goals above expected

MIN3.63 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CGY2.86 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Flames 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

P1 02:43MIND. Yurov0–1
P1 10:37MINV. Hinostroza0–2
P3 05:49CGYM. Frost1–2
P3 17:17MINM. BoldyPP1–3
P3 17:45MINK. KaprizovEN1–4

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

Where the shots came from

CGY

47 shots

Final

86 shots

MIN

39 shots

CGY MIN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CGYMIN

0 / 2

0.46 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.30 xG

1 / 18

1.73 xG

Medium

2 / 17

1.87 xG

0 / 44

0.67 xG

Low

0 / 35

0.46 xG

The Wild buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

F. Gustavsson

+1.9

MIN · 29/30

D. Cooley

+0.6

CGY · 20/23

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Wild pull away from 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 14–3

02:43MIND. Yurov(V. Tarasenko, D. Hunt)0–1
10:37MINV. Hinostroza(J. Middleton, J. Spurgeon)0–2

2ndshots 7–5no goals

3rdshots 9–16

05:49CGYM. Frost(J. Huberdeau)1–2
17:17MINM. Boldypower play(K. Kaprizov, Q. Hughes)1–3
17:45MINK. Kaprizovempty net(B. Faber, J. Eriksson Ek)1–4

score reads CGY–MIN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.63

MIN chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.055

MIN puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

47.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.86Expected goals3.63

MIN 56% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal24

2High-danger chances5

64All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: CGY 59% · MIN 41%

Faceoffs · MIN won37%off48%neu71%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CGY0 / 2 · 0.46 xG

MIN2 / 5 · 1.30 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CGY1 / 18 · 1.73 xG

MIN2 / 17 · 1.87 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CGY0 / 44 · 0.67 xG

MIN0 / 35 · 0.46 xG

CGY went 1-for-18 from medium danger on 1.73 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CGY

1 G · 2.86 xG · -1.9

MIN

4 G · 3.63 xG · +0.4

012345

CGY finished -1.9 against expected, MIN +0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CGY

WRIST1/30

SNAP0/5

TIP IN0/4

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

BAT0/0

OTHER0/17

MIN

WRIST2/21

SNAP1/8

TIP IN1/4

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

BAT0/1

OTHER0/18

CGY

MIN

Off the rush

1 G on 32

2.05 xG

3 G on 25

2.49 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.54 xG

0 G on 1

0.16 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 1-for-30, MIN 2-for-21. MIN 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

D. Cooley

CGY · 20/23 · .870

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.3-0.7

Medium2/171.9-0.1

Low0/350.5+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

F. Gustavsson

MIN · 29/30 · .967

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium1/181.7+0.7

Low0/440.7+0.7

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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CGY

47 shots

Final

86 shots

MIN

39 shots

CGY MIN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

K. Kaprizov

#97 · L · MIN

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:27 on ice · +1

Q. Hughes

#43 · D · MIN

0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 27:57 on ice

B. Faber

#7 · D · MIN

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:01 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 29

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:15 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 2.4–2.7 goal spread with Minnesota at 56% win probability. This is a lean on underlying play and luck regressing against Calgary.

The Flames are underwater: -10 goal differential over their last 10 games. Their 47.0% 5v5 xG rate lags Minnesota's 52.0%. Worse, Calgary's PDO sits at 0.985 while Minnesota's sits at 1.007—the Flames running cold and due for positive regression, the Wild running lucky and vulnerable the other way.

Minnesota dominates the underlying matchup. At 52.0% 5v5 expected goals, the Wild generate higher-quality chances from fewer total touches, even as Minnesota's Corsi (48.0%) slightly trails Calgary's (49.0%). This split—better xG on inferior volume—is where the edge lives.

Calgary holds a rest advantage: three days off versus Minnesota's one. But the underlying gap is wide enough that it reads as secondary. Watch J. Wallstedt for a potential backup start given the back-to-back.

The matchup turns on two players per side. Blake Coleman leads Calgary's offense at 0.89 xG/60 with 16 goals, 12 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and an 11.4% shooting rate. Matt Coronato matches at 0.80 xG/60, 10 goals, 16 assists, but with a 6.6% conversion rate that suggests underperformance and positive regression ahead—dangerous for Minnesota.

Matt Boldy matches Coleman's underlying rate (0.89 xG/60) while posting 22 goals, 18 assists, 5 high-danger goals, and a 13.7% conversion rate. Robby Fabbri operates at 0.88 xG/60 with modest totals—2 goals, 3 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 6.9% shooting—a profile that signals inefficiency. Minnesota's depth matters: Boldy is elite, Fabbri is underperforming, and the Wild still project ahead.

Calgary's defensive weak link is Matt Coronato. Minnesota has no clearly exposed vulnerability. Neither team generates high-danger or rebound goals at meaningful rates, so expect a game driven by volume and xG.

The model's lean is sound.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 56%

56%

MIN

Model favorite

44%

56%

CGY50MIN

MIN by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.4–2.7 MIN; 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 →MIN

47.0%52.0%

49.0%48.0%

2.362.55

2.662.40

1.762.04

2.151.93

0.9851.007

MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.007) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CGY

3-5-2

-10 GD · 3d rest

MIN

5-3-2

-3 GD · 1d rest

0.985

CGY PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.007

MIN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Wild 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 Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
J. Wallstedt is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Flames are underwater at -10 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. Wolf

3 days rest.810 last start

Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MIN

Expected in goal

J. Wallstedt

back-to-back.906 last start

Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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

MIN

Matt Boldy22G 18A

0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh

Robby Fabbri2G 3A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page