Backcheck
Recap · OTT at CGY

Senators run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 5:55 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
OTT
Ottawa Senators
4
Home
CGY
Calgary Flames
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

5.21Expected goals1.76
75% share for the better side
37Shot attempts (SOG)20
9High-danger chances1
74Corsi (all attempts)45
Score-adjusted: 62% / 38%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Ottawa's 4-1 victory masks one underlying reality: they generated nine high-danger chances to Calgary's one, a ratio the final score barely captures.

That disparity flowed from territorial dominance. The Senators controlled 75% of 5v5 expected goals (5.21 to 1.76) and out-shot Calgary 37 to 20. Quality separated them further: Ottawa's chances carried 0.070 xG per shot, nearly double Calgary's 0.039.

Cooley, Calgary's goalie, kept the game from becoming a rout. He stopped 3.21 goals above expected—a performance that compressed what the underlying numbers suggested into a 4-1 final. Ullmark, Ottawa's counterpart, had less work but delivered: he overperformed his expected save percentage by 0.76 against relentless high-danger chances.

Off the rush, the Senators were lethal: two goals on 33 chances. In the offensive zone, they also created six rebounds without converting, a sign of their complete control.

Calgary generated 20 shots but none carried consequence. Against a team dominating quality and territory to this degree, volume becomes irrelevant.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT2 / 9 · 2.73 xG
CGY0 / 1 · 0.20 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT1 / 16 · 1.65 xG
CGY1 / 9 · 1.01 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT1 / 49 · 0.83 xG
CGY0 / 35 · 0.55 xG

OTT went 2-for-9 from high danger on 2.73 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
4 G · 5.21 xG · -1.2
CGY
1 G · 1.76 xG · -0.8
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
L. UllmarkOTT
+0.8
D. CooleyCGY
+3.2

OTT finished -1.2 against expected, CGY -0.8 — D. Cooley (CGY) saved 3.2 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
WRIST3/32
TIP IN0/6
SNAP1/7
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/7
POKE0/1
OTHER0/18
CGY
WRIST1/19
TIP IN0/4
SNAP0/3
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/14
OTT
CGY
Off the rush
2 G on 33 · 2.41 xG
1 G on 19 · 1.26 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6 · 0.95 xG
0 G on 1 · 0.20 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 3-for-32, CGY 1-for-19. OTT scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
T. Stützle
#18 · C · OTT
1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 22:38 TOI
D. Batherson
#19 · R · OTT
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:36 TOI
A. Zub
#2 · D · OTT
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:35 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • CGY had the shot volume but the chances weren't dangerous.
  • D. Cooley (CGY) stopped 3.2 goals above expected.
  • OTT had the higher quality looks — 0.070 xG/shot vs 0.039.
  • OTT was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 33 rush chances.
  • OTT created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • D. Cooley (CGY) saved 3.2 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · OTT at CGY · 9:00 PM ET

The Senators are the model's lean over the Flames — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 12, 5:41 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

55%
OTT
Model favorite
55%
45%
OTT50CGY

OTT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.72.4 CGY; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

OTT← edge
edge →CGY
56.0%5v5 xG%47.0%
53.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.66xGF / 602.36
2.12xGA / 602.66
2.18Goals for / gm1.76
1.99Goals against / gm2.15
0.993PDO — luck, not skill0.985

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.993 vs 0.985) says OTT has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model backs Ottawa at 55% win probability, projecting a 2.7–2.4 Senators victory. That edge sits on something durable: puck management. Ottawa's 56.0% expected-goals share and 53.0% Corsi both exceed Calgary's 47.0% and 49.0%, a split that suggests territorial control beyond what the scoresheet has captured. In form, the Senators are sharper too—6-2-2 in their last 10 against Calgary's -11 goal differential over the same window.

One regression watch matters: the Flames' 0.985 PDO has run cold. Ottawa's 0.993 sits closer to neutral. When Calgary's results suddenly improve without the underlying play shifting, that's what you're watching.

Both starters face the back-to-back squeeze. D. Cooley and L. Ullmark are each playing their second game in two nights, which tilts toward backup minutes or visible fatigue.

The personnel battle favors Ottawa. Brady Tkachuk generates 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes and has recorded 11 goals with 20 assists at a 7.5% shooting rate; Dylan Cozens posts 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals and a 9.5% mark. Calgary's most dangerous forward is Blake Coleman, whose 0.89 xG/60 undersells the 16 goals and 12 assists he's produced at an 11.4% shooting rate—one that will regress. Matt Coronato sits at 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and a 6.6% shooting rate.

Structurally, Calgary's defensive weak link is Matt Coronato; Ottawa's is Nick Jensen. Neither team is capitalizing on high-danger or rebound chances at sustainable rates, which could insulate both from overexposure on below-average nights.

Ottawa's lean holds. Calgary's cold spell and underlying disadvantage have finally aligned.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters