Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Wed, Feb 4 · the slate
Breakdown · EDM at CGY

Flames run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalWed, Feb 4
EDMEdmonton Oilers3CGYCalgary Flames4
The verdict · earned

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

EDM 3 · CGY 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:12 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 Oilers out-shot the Flames 39–25, yet Calgary controlled 62% of expected goals (4.70–2.93). That discord explains the 4–3 result: Edmonton generated volume, Calgary generated danger.

The Flames created eight high-danger chances to Edmonton's one—a margin that doesn't require math to explain. On the rush, both teams scored three goals, though Calgary needed only 32 chances while Edmonton required 33. Calgary's power play capitalized ruthlessly: two goals on eight shots (0.76 xG). Edmonton scored twice on the power play from 15 shots and 0.85 xG.

Ryan Lomberg's snap shot from the doorstep (third period, 06:44) was the turning point—a high-danger finish typifying Calgary's approach. The Flames generated 0.073 xG per shot; Edmonton managed just 0.049. Calgary was efficient. Edmonton was scattered.

T. Jarry (EDM) saved 21 of 25 (0.840 SV%, +0.70 vs expected), nearly stealing back a full goal. D. Cooley (CGY) stopped 36 of 39 (0.923 SV%), turning Edmonton's rare premium looks into saves.

Edmonton scored twice from low-danger spots—the kind of luck that evaporates over time. Calgary created three rebound opportunities (zero converted). Edmonton created three rebound opportunities (zero converted). The difference was everything: Calgary's chances carried weight.

The scoreboard reads 4–3. The underlying numbers read: Flames dominated.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 4
EDM
3
CGY
4

Flames run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.9 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
2.93
CGY
4.70
38% of the chances62%

The board read EDM 3, CGY 4. The chances read EDM 2.9, CGY 4.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
−0.7
goals above expected
CGY4.70 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM2.93 expected · 3 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 03:12CGYJ. HuberdeauPP0–1
  2. P1 05:14EDML. DraisaitlPP1–1
  3. P1 14:44CGYM. GridinPP1–2
  4. P2 11:43CGYC. Zary1–3
  5. P2 18:26EDML. DraisaitlPP2–3
  6. P3 04:17EDMK. Kapanen3–3
  7. P3 06:44CGYR. Lomberg3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
46 shots
3
Final
94 shots
CGY
48 shots
4
EDM attackCGY attack
EDM CGY Goal
46
shots · 3 in
48
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMCGY
0 / 1
0.19 xG
High danger
2 / 8
1.96 xG
1 / 22
2.08 xG
Medium
2 / 19
2.09 xG
2 / 37
0.67 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.64 xG

The Flames buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
T. Jarry
+0.7
EDM · 21/25
C
D. Cooley
−0.1
CGY · 36/39
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames run the Oilers 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 10–10
  1. 03:12CGYJ. Huberdeaupower play(M. Weegar, M. Gridin)0–1
  2. 05:14EDML. Draisaitlpower play(R. Nugent-Hopkins, E. Bouchard)1–1
  3. 14:44CGYM. Gridinpower play(M. Weegar, D. Cooley)1–2
2ndshots 15–6
  1. 11:43CGYC. Zary(Z. Whitecloud, N. Kadri)1–3
  2. 18:26EDML. Draisaitlpower play(E. Bouchard, C. McDavid)2–3
3rdshots 14–9
  1. 04:17EDMK. Kapanen(V. Podkolzin, E. Bouchard)3–3
  2. 06:44CGYR. Lomberg(N. Kadri, Z. Whitecloud)3–4

score reads EDM–CGY

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.70
CGY chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.7
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.012
CGY puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
51.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.93Expected goals4.70
CGY 62% of the chance quality
39Shots on goal25
1High-danger chances8
60All attempts (Corsi)64
Adjusted for score: EDM 52% · CGY 48%
Faceoffs · CGY won14%off63%neu54%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM0 / 1 · 0.19 xG
CGY2 / 8 · 1.96 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM1 / 22 · 2.08 xG
CGY2 / 19 · 2.09 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM2 / 37 · 0.67 xG
CGY0 / 37 · 0.64 xG

EDM went 2-for-37 from low danger on 0.67 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
3 G · 2.93 xG · +0.1
CGY
4 G · 4.70 xG · -0.7
012345

EDM finished +0.1 against expected, CGY -0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
WRIST2/23
SNAP1/6
BACKHAND0/7
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/2
BAT0/0
OTHER0/14
CGY
WRIST0/30
SNAP3/6
BACKHAND0/1
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/16
EDM
CGY
Off the rush
3 G on 33
2.18 xG
3 G on 32
3.29 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.37 xG
0 G on 3
0.37 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 2-for-23, CGY 0-for-30. EDM 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
T. Jarry
EDM · 21/25 · .840
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.0-0.0
Medium2/192.1+0.1
Low0/370.6+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

D. Cooley
CGY · 36/39 · .923
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium1/222.1+1.1
Low2/370.7-1.3

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

94 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
EDM
46 shots
3
Final
94 shots
CGY
48 shots
4
EDM attackCGY attack
EDM CGY Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM left, CGY 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
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 26:25 on ice · +1
L. Draisaitl
#29 · C · EDM
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 25:27 on ice · +1
Z. Whitecloud
#28 · D · CGY
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 24:37 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Feb 4
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:09 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 projection is dead even. The model favors Edmonton 2.6–2.5 and assigns the Oilers 52% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Edmonton owns the underlying play. The Oilers hold a 52.0% 5v5 expected goals share to Calgary's 47.0%, and lead 50.0% to 49.0% in Corsi. But here's the catch: both teams are running cold on luck. Edmonton's 0.982 PDO and Calgary's 0.985 PDO signal they're due for bounces. The Flames' -9 goal differential over their last 10 underscores how thoroughly they've underperformed their underlying metrics.

Rest breaks toward Edmonton. Calgary arrives on one day; Edmonton on three. Add D. Wolf on a back-to-back for Calgary—watch for either a backup start or a starter running on fumes.

For Edmonton, Zach Hyman is the engine. He carries 1.23 xG per 60 minutes and has 14 goals and 13 assists on 13.0% shooting—a clip that should normalize higher, giving him runway for added scoring. Connor McDavid at 13.7% shooting on 0.92 xG/60 is even more unsustainable; he has 25 goals and 33 assists.

Calgary counters with Blake Coleman at 0.89 xG/60, 16 goals and 12 assists, shooting 11.4%. Matt Coronato operates at 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and 16 assists, but his 6.6% shooting is the team's key variable. Edmonton's defensive weak link is Jake Walman; Calgary's is Coronato.

Both teams operate at 0% hard-chance and rebound goal rates—elite puck management. The edge belongs to Edmonton, but only by a hair.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 52%
52%
EDM
Model favorite
52%
48%
EDM50CGY

EDM by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.6–2.5 CGY; 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
EDM← edge
edge →CGY
52.0%47.0%
50.0%49.0%
2.642.36
2.472.66
2.131.76
2.292.15
0.9820.985

EDM holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 0.985) says CGY has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
EDM
5-4-1
+5 GD · 3d rest
CGY
3-5-2
-9 GD · 1d rest
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.985
CGY PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Oilers 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.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Flames are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Oilers have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
EDM
Expected in goal
T. Jarry
3 days rest.750 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CGY
Expected in goal
D. Wolf
back-to-back.857 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.

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
EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page