Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Sat, Mar 7 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at CGY

Flames hold off the Hurricanes

FinalSat, Mar 7
CARCarolina Hurricanes4CGYCalgary Flames5
The verdict · coin flip

The Flames won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

CAR 4 · CGY 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:27 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 5-4 win tells a story that expected goals contradicts. The Hurricanes held a 3.11–3.09 xG advantage—a statistical edge the final margin inverted.

The gap between chance creation and goal conversion sits at goaltending and finish. The Flames overperformed their 3.09 xG by 1.91 goals, while the Hurricanes overperformed their 3.11 xG by just 0.89. B. Bussi's performance explains the chasm: the Carolina goaltender allowed 1.91 goals more than expected based on shot quality, a collapse that swung the game entirely.

Calgary's execution in high-danger areas sealed the win. The Flames converted 2 of 5 HD chances (40%), while Carolina, despite generating 5 equal chances, couldn't match that rate. On the rush, Calgary scored 2 goals on 21 attempts; Carolina, with more volume (30 attempts), managed the same return. The teams traded power-play dominance—Carolina scored 2 PPG on 6 shots (0.48 xG)—but that elite execution couldn't compensate for the underlying deficit.

This game was decided by variance, not performance. The Hurricanes generated chances roughly equal to Calgary's but were outfinished where it mattered.

Three Stars

  • #24 S. Jarvis (CAR)—1G, 2A in 19:29
  • #86 J. Farabee (CGY)—2G, 1A in 18:30
  • #20 S. Aho (CAR)—3A in 18:20
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 7
CAR
4
CGY
5

Flames hold off the Hurricanes

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

Dead even on chances. The Flames took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
3.11
CGY
3.09
50% of the chances50%

The board read CAR 4, CGY 5. The chances read CAR 3.1, CGY 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
+1.9
goals above expected
CGY3.09 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR3.11 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flames scored 1.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:44CARS. Jarvis1–0
  2. P2 00:19CGYR. Strome1–1
  3. P2 04:11CGYJ. Farabee1–2
  4. P2 07:06CGYM. FrostPP1–3
  5. P3 02:24CGYB. Coleman1–4
  6. P3 04:41CARS. Walker2–4
  7. P3 05:43CARA. NikishinPP3–4
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
47 shots
4
Final
80 shots
CGY
33 shots
5
CAR attackCGY attack
CAR CGY Goal
47
shots · 4 in
33
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARCGY
1 / 5
0.98 xG
High danger
2 / 5
1.14 xG
1 / 16
1.51 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.59 xG
2 / 36
0.62 xG
Low
1 / 27
0.36 xG

The Flames buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D-
D. Wolf
−0.9
CGY · 25/29
F
B. Bussi
−1.9
CAR · 20/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames hold off the Hurricanes

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 9–6
  1. 00:44CARS. Jarvis(A. Svechnikov, S. Aho)1–0
2ndshots 7–13
  1. 00:19CGYR. Strome(O. Maatta, M. Pospisil)1–1
  2. 04:11CGYJ. Farabee(M. Frost, B. Coleman)1–2
  3. 07:06CGYM. Frostpower play(Z. Parekh, R. Strome)1–3
3rdshots 13–6
  1. 02:24CGYB. Coleman(J. Farabee)1–4
  2. 04:41CARS. Walker(T. Hall, S. Aho)2–4
  3. 05:43CARA. Nikishinpower play(S. Aho, S. Jarvis)3–4
  4. 17:42CGYJ. Farabee(M. Frost)3–5
  5. 19:48CARA. Svechnikovpower play(K. Miller, S. Jarvis)4–5

score reads CAR–CGY

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.09
CGY chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.041
CGY puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.11Expected goals3.09
CAR 50% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal25
5High-danger chances5
57All attempts (Corsi)45
Adjusted for score: CAR 59% · CGY 42%
Faceoffs · CGY won42%off55%neu46%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR1 / 5 · 0.98 xG
CGY2 / 5 · 1.14 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR1 / 16 · 1.51 xG
CGY2 / 13 · 1.59 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR2 / 36 · 0.62 xG
CGY1 / 27 · 0.36 xG

CAR went 2-for-36 from low danger on 0.62 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
4 G · 3.11 xG · +0.9
CGY
5 G · 3.09 xG · +1.9
0123456

CAR finished +0.9 against expected, CGY +1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
WRIST3/25
TIP IN0/5
SNAP0/7
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP1/6
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/10
CGY
WRIST4/13
TIP IN0/7
SNAP0/5
BACKHAND1/5
SLAP0/2
POKE0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/12
CAR
CGY
Off the rush
2 G on 30
2.06 xG
2 G on 21
2.11 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.47 xG
2 G on 4
0.81 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 3-for-25, CGY 4-for-13. CAR scored 2 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
B. Bussi
CAR · 20/25 · .800
-1.9
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.1-0.9
Medium2/131.6-0.4
Low1/270.4-0.6

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. Wolf
CGY · 25/29 · .862
-0.9
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.0-0.0
Medium1/161.5+0.5
Low2/360.6-1.4

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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
47 shots
4
Final
80 shots
CGY
33 shots
5
CAR attackCGY attack
CAR CGY Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR 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
S. Jarvis
#24 · R · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:29 on ice · +2
J. Farabee
#86 · L · CGY
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:30 on ice · +1
S. Aho
#20 · C · CAR
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 18:20 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 7
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:05 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 2.8–2.5 victory for Carolina, backed by 56% win probability for the Hurricanes. This edge rests on clean dominance in underlying metrics: the Hurricanes own a 56.0% expected goals share at 5v5 against Calgary's 47.0%, and control puck possession at 60.0% Corsi against the Flames' 49.0%. That spread signals territorial control.

Form skews the same direction. Carolina has posted an 8-1-1 record over their last ten games. Calgary, meanwhile, sits at -12 goal differential over the same span—a slide that compounds the underlying disadvantage.

The complication arrives via luck metrics. Both teams are running cold on PDO: Carolina at 0.984, Calgary at 0.985. Neither has converted at the rate their shot quality deserves. The Flames are due for positive regression. So are the Hurricanes. Regression toward the mean doesn't guarantee anything on any single night, but the model prices it in, which narrows the gap between the projection and what the underlying play alone would suggest.

Jackson Blake drives Carolina's offense at 1.06 expected goals per 60 with 14 goals, 19 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and a 10.9% shooting rate. Seth Jarvis runs parallel at 0.98 xG/60, 17 goals, 12 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and 11.9% shooting. For Calgary, Blake Coleman anchors the attack at 0.89 xG/60, 16 goals, 12 assists, and 2 high-danger goals on 11.4% shooting. Matt Coronato adds 10 goals and 16 assists at 0.80 xG/60 on 6.6% shooting.

D. Cooley faces a back-to-back start. Watch for either a backup in net or a starter running on depleted reserves.

Carolina's edge is real. But when both teams eventually regress upward from cold-running luck lines, that projected gap tightens.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 56%
56%
CAR
Model favorite
56%
44%
CAR50CGY

CAR by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.8–2.5 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
CAR← edge
edge →CGY
56.0%47.0%
60.0%49.0%
2.982.36
2.312.66
2.261.76
1.952.15
0.9840.985

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 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
CAR
8-1-1
+12 GD · 2d rest
CGY
3-5-2
-12 GD · 1d rest
0.984
CAR 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 Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • D. Cooley is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Hurricanes are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).
  • The Flames are underwater at -12 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
CAR
Expected in goal
B. Bussi
2 days rest.818 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CGY
Expected in goal
D. Cooley
back-to-back.943 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
CAR
Jackson Blake14G 19A
1.06 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.9% sh
Seth Jarvis17G 12A
0.98 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.9% 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