Breakdown · CGY at NYR

Rangers shut out the Flames, 4-0

FinalTue, Mar 10

The verdict · earned

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

CGY 0 · NYR 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:37 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

J. Quick stole this game before the Rangers even needed to play hockey. The Flames generated only 2.18 expected goals and scored zero—a collapse that any goalie would amplify, but Quick's +2.18 performance above expected transformed dominance into humiliation.

That said, the Rangers didn't leave it to chance. They controlled 65% of 5v5 expected goals (4.01–2.18), held 58% of shot attempts (29–21), and turned high-danger chances into law: 6–2 in their favor. Their shot quality was ruthless—0.072 expected goals per attempt versus Calgary's 0.040.

A. Lafrenière was lethal, scoring three times in 18:38, with his opening strike from the high slot (P3, 17:42) setting the tone. G. Perreault and M. Zibanejad each added two assists. The Rangers' dominance was suffocating; Calgary never had a realistic chance to win.

The margin looked brutal—4–0 always does—but the underlying story was simpler. The Rangers generated chances at roughly double the Flames' rate; J. Quick saved 2.18 goals above expected; and the Flames crashed the net three times chasing rebounds while the Rangers crashed six times and found nothing. The difference was between indomitable goaltending and capitulation.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 10

CGY

NYR

Rangers shut out the Flames, 4-0

Chances 2.2 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Rangers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CGY

2.18

NYR

4.01

35% of the chances65%

The board read CGY 0, NYR 4. The chances read CGY 2.2, NYR 4.0.

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

Luck check

NYR

−0.0

goals above expected

NYR4.01 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CGY2.18 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Flames left 2.2 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 17:27NYRA. LafrenièrePP0–1
P2 10:28NYRC. Sheary0–2
P2 16:31NYRA. Lafrenière0–3
P3 17:42NYRA. Lafrenière0–4

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

Where the shots came from

CGY

37 shots

Final

82 shots

NYR

45 shots

CGY NYR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 0 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CGYNYR

0 / 2

0.46 xG

High danger

2 / 6

1.44 xG

0 / 9

1.02 xG

Medium

2 / 18

2.03 xG

0 / 44

0.71 xG

Low

0 / 32

0.54 xG

The Rangers buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

J. Quick

+2.2

NYR · 21/21

D. Wolf

+0.0

CGY · 25/29

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Rangers shut out the Flames, 4-0

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 9–9

17:27NYRA. Lafrenièrepower play(M. Zibanejad, A. Fox)0–1

2ndshots 9–12

10:28NYRC. Sheary(T. Kartye, W. Borgen)0–2
16:31NYRA. Lafrenière(G. Perreault, M. Zibanejad)0–3

3rdshots 3–8

17:42NYRA. Lafrenière(G. Perreault, U. Vaakanainen)0–4

score reads CGY–NYR

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.01

NYR chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.0

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.071

NYR puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.18Expected goals4.01

NYR 65% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal29

2High-danger chances6

55All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: CGY 54% · NYR 46%

Faceoffs · NYR won44%off56%neu50%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

NYR2 / 6 · 1.44 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CGY0 / 9 · 1.02 xG

NYR2 / 18 · 2.03 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CGY0 / 44 · 0.71 xG

NYR0 / 32 · 0.54 xG

CGY went 0-for-9 from medium danger on 1.02 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CGY

0 G · 2.18 xG · -2.2

NYR

4 G · 4.01 xG · -0.0

012345

CGY finished -2.2 against expected, NYR -0.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CGY

WRIST0/19

SNAP0/9

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN0/0

POKE0/0

OTHER0/18

NYR

WRIST2/26

SNAP0/5

SLAP1/4

BACKHAND0/4

TIP IN1/5

POKE0/1

OTHER0/11

CGY

NYR

Off the rush

0 G on 22

1.11 xG

3 G on 25

2.57 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.61 xG

0 G on 6

0.91 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 0-for-19, NYR 2-for-26. NYR 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 · 25/29 · .862

+0.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/61.4-0.6

Medium2/182.0+0.0

Low0/320.5+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

J. Quick

NYR · 21/21 · 1.000

+2.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium0/91.0+1.0

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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CGY

37 shots

Final

82 shots

NYR

45 shots

CGY NYR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

A. Lafrenière

#13 · L · NYR

3 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 18:38 on ice · +2

G. Perreault

#94 · R · NYR

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:58 on ice · +2

M. Zibanejad

#93 · C · NYR

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:45 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 10

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:35 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 Rangers enter as slight favorites, but only barely—the model projects a 2.4–2.6 game with New York holding a 54% win probability, as close to a pick'em as competitive hockey gets.

The Flames arrive bruised. They've bled -11 goals over their last 10 games, a sign of recent collapse. On the season, though, the teams sit nearly identical in possession: each owns a 49.0% Corsi rate, and their expected goals shares diverge by just one percent (47.0% Calgary, 48.0% New York). The Rangers' slight edge looks marginal in isolation, but it compounds with goaltending.

The PDO numbers suggest the Flames are running cold. Their 0.985 mark indicates shooting below expectations and surrendering high-danger chances at an unsustainable rate—a classic regression candidate. The Rangers' 1.009 PDO counters with evidence of sustainable execution, though neither team's number points to a talent chasm.

Both teams face goaltending questions. I. Shesterkin starts on a back-to-back, as does D. Cooley. Either could be replaced by a backup, or either could begin fatigued. Watch for that answer early.

Blake Coleman drives Calgary's offense at 0.89 xG per 60 minutes, backed by 16 goals and 12 assists with an 11.4% shooting rate—sustainable given his volume of high-danger chances. Matt Coronato (0.80 xG/60, 10 goals, 16 assists) works from lower volume and shoots at 6.6%, suggesting efficient finishing, though he represents a defensive weak point for the Flames.

Adam Sykora leads New York's attack at 0.91 xG per 60 with 3 goals and 1 assist, a small sample that suggests explosiveness. Gabe Perreault (0.79 xG/60, 8 goals, 11 assists) owns more volume and doesn't need perfection to produce—his 13.1% shooting rate and two high-danger goals mark him as a player comfortable in dangerous areas. Vincent Iorio becomes a defensive target for the Flames.

This game hinges on execution in the attacking third. With possession metrics locked and talent nearly identical, whoever generates quality chances and finishes at sustainable rates will pull away.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NYR 54%

53%

NYR

Model favorite

47%

53%

CGY50NYR

NYR by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.4–2.6 NYR; 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 →NYR

47.0%48.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.362.26

2.662.40

1.761.88

2.151.90

0.9851.009

NYR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.009) says NYR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CGY

4-5-1

-11 GD · 1d rest

NYR

3-5-2

-3 GD · 1d rest

0.985

CGY PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.009

NYR 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

I. Shesterkin is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
D. Cooley is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Flames are underwater at -11 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

back-to-back.786 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.

NYR

Expected in goal

I. Shesterkin

back-to-back.941 last start

Backup Igor Shesterkin · +21.3 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

NYR

Adam Sykora3G 1A

0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh

Gabe Perreault8G 11A

0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page