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

Flames pull away from the Sharks

The verdict · earned

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

CGY 4 · SJS 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:38 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 Sharks outshot the Flames 35–29 but produced chances worth less than half their volume — Calgary's 4–1 victory was a mismatch in quality, not a matter of luck.

The xG gap told the story: Flames controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (4.68–3.13), a spread that matched the scoreline exactly. San Jose generated higher shot volume but lower-danger attempts. Calgary averaged 0.099 expected goals per shot; San Jose averaged 0.045—a gap wide enough to explain everything.

High-danger chances reflected this quality chasm. Calgary created eight; San Jose created three. Calgary's rush game was lethal—three goals on 29 chances meant opportunism from the transition. San Jose crashed for rebounds (four total) but converted none, wasting the only path back into the game.

Both goalies stole moments. D. Wolf (CGY) saved 2.13 goals above expected on 34 saves, the difference in a comfortable win. Y. Askarov (SJS) posted 1.68 above expected on 25 saves—respectable work in a losing cause, overshadowed by the avalanche of low-danger attempts in front of him.

The Sharks' underlying performance—dominant shot attempts, weak shot quality, underperformance of 2.13 expected goals—painted a picture of a team pressing without precision. They had the volume; Calgary had the aim.

Mikael Backlund's wrist shot from the wing (17:30, third period) proved the turning point, a moment where Calgary's efficiency finally broke through.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 26
CGY
4
SJS
1

Flames pull away from the Sharks

Chances 4.7 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
4.68
SJS
3.13
60% of the chances40%

The board read CGY 4, SJS 1. The chances read CGY 4.7, SJS 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
−0.7
goals above expected
CGY4.68 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS3.13 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sharks 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. P2 01:17SJST. Toffoli0–1
  2. P2 15:02CGYN. Kadri1–1
  3. P3 05:22CGYC. Zary2–1
  4. P3 11:56CGYN. Kadri3–1
  5. P3 17:30CGYM. BacklundEN4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
39 shots
4
Final
84 shots
SJS
45 shots
1
CGY attackSJS attack
CGY SJS Goal
39
shots · 4 in
45
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYSJS
2 / 8
2.83 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.66 xG
2 / 12
1.31 xG
Medium
0 / 15
1.71 xG
0 / 27
0.53 xG
Low
1 / 52
0.75 xG

The Sharks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Wolf
+2.1
CGY · 34/35
A
Y. Askarov
+1.7
SJS · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames pull away from the Sharks

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 6–16no goals
    2ndshots 10–12
    1. 01:17SJST. Toffoli(M. Ferraro, M. Misa)0–1
    2. 15:02CGYN. Kadri(J. Farabee, M. Weegar)1–1
    3rdshots 13–7
    1. 05:22CGYC. Zary(M. Backlund, Y. Kuznetsov)2–1
    2. 11:56CGYN. Kadri(C. Zary)3–1
    3. 17:30CGYM. Backlundempty net(M. Coronato, Z. Whitecloud)4–1

    score reads CGY–SJS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.68
    CGY chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.7
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.071
    CGY puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    40.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.68Expected goals3.13
    CGY 60% of the chance quality
    29Shots on goal35
    8High-danger chances3
    47All attempts (Corsi)70
    Adjusted for score: CGY 39% · SJS 61%
    Faceoffs · SJS won50%off63%neu33%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CGY2 / 8 · 2.83 xG
    SJS0 / 3 · 0.66 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CGY2 / 12 · 1.31 xG
    SJS0 / 15 · 1.71 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CGY0 / 27 · 0.53 xG
    SJS1 / 52 · 0.75 xG

    SJS went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.71 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CGY
    4 G · 4.68 xG · -0.7
    SJS
    1 G · 3.13 xG · -2.1
    012345

    CGY finished -0.7 against expected, SJS -2.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CGY
    WRIST4/29
    TIP IN0/4
    SLAP0/1
    BACKHAND0/2
    SNAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/8
    SJS
    WRIST0/23
    TIP IN1/6
    SLAP0/8
    BACKHAND0/5
    SNAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/25
    CGY
    SJS
    Off the rush
    3 G on 29
    2.54 xG
    1 G on 34
    2.48 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.49 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.56 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 4-for-29, SJS 0-for-23. CGY 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. Wolf
    CGY · 34/35 · .971
    +2.1
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium0/151.7+1.7
    Low1/520.8-0.3

    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

    Y. Askarov
    SJS · 25/28 · .893
    +1.7
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/82.8+0.8
    Medium2/121.3-0.7
    Low0/270.5+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

    84 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CGY
    39 shots
    4
    Final
    84 shots
    SJS
    45 shots
    1
    CGY attackSJS attack
    CGY SJS Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, SJS 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 · 5 SOG · 18:57 on ice · +2
    N. Kadri
    #91 · C · CGY
    2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 18:54 on ice · +2
    C. Zary
    #47 · C · CGY
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:34 on ice · +3
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Feb 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:37 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 2.5–2.6 goal game with the Sharks at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Underlying play suggests these teams are nearly interchangeable. Calgary owns 47.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi; San Jose counters with 48.0% xG and 47.0% Corsi. The separation exists in variance. The Flames run a 0.985 PDO—running cold, primed for positive regression—while the Sharks sit at a sustainable 0.998. That regression edge belongs to Calgary.

    Recent form has punished the Flames. They're minus-6 in goal differential over their last 10 games, a stretch that masks their underlying quality. If their shooting luck stabilizes, their metrics suggest they can win this game.

    San Jose's attack centers on Pavol Regenda, who generates 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes but is marked as likely unavailable. That forces weight onto Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6 goals, 15.0% shooting). Calgary counters with Blake Coleman (16 goals, 0.89 xG/60, 11.4% shooting, 2 high-danger goals) and Matt Coronato (10 goals, 0.80 xG/60, 16 assists, 6.6% shooting).

    Both teams generate zero high-danger goals and zero rebound goals at 5-on-5, an indicator of suffocating defense. The structural matchups matter: Calgary identifies Coronato as a defensive liability, while San Jose carries similar exposure with Chernyshov. The team sharper in managing those matchups likely wins.

    The edge tilts toward Calgary—their PDO regression potential, Regenda's likely absence, and relative depth advantage. But this remains a coin flip.

    Data: MoneyPuck 5v5 models, NHL API

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    SJS 53%
    53%
    SJS
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    CGY50SJS

    SJS by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.5–2.6 SJS; 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 →SJS
    47.0%48.0%
    49.0%47.0%
    2.362.33
    2.662.56
    1.761.99
    2.152.32
    0.9850.998

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.998) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CGY
    4-4-2
    -6 GD · 21d rest
    SJS
    4-5-1
    -3 GD · 21d rest
    0.985
    CGY PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    SJS PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Flames are underwater at -6 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. Cooley
    21 days rest.923 last start
    Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    SJS
    Expected in goal
    Y. Askarov
    21 days rest.927 last start
    Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
    SJS
    Pavol Regenda5G 1A
    1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
    Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next