Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
← Mon, Mar 16 · the slate
Breakdown · CGY at DET

Red Wings run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Mar 16
CGYCalgary Flames2DETDetroit Red Wings5
The verdict · earned

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

CGY 2 · DET 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:31 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

Detroit won 5-2, but the story wasn't the scoreline—it was the gap in quality. With only 25 shot attempts to Calgary's 27, Detroit controlled the dangerous areas: 8 high-danger chances to 2, and an expected-goals edge of 4.87–2.70 (64–36).

Efficiency explains the margin. Detroit's shots generated 0.096 expected goals per shot; Calgary's, 0.052. When you shoot less but shoot smarter, you win decisively.

In the high-danger zone, Detroit converted 4 of 8 chances (50%). Calgary scored twice from low-danger spots. J. Gibson (25/27, 0.926 SV%) backed the advantage; D. Wolf (20/24, 0.833 SV%) gave it up.

Dominik Shine's wrist shot from the slot in the third period (18:55) exemplified Detroit's dominance near the net. By that point, the result was already determined.

Detroit's rush game sealed it: 5 goals on 28 attempts, a rate Calgary couldn't approach (2 on 25). Both teams created rebound opportunities effectively—Detroit generated 3, Calgary 4—but neither converted them. The difference was everywhere else.

A. DeBrincat controlled the offense (3A in 20:03). P. Kane provided the touch (2G in 19:24). J. Compher facilitated (2A in 21:15). By the underlying metrics, Detroit didn't need luck—just precision where it counted.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 16
CGY
2
DET
5

Red Wings run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.7 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
2.70
DET
4.87
36% of the chances64%

The board read CGY 2, DET 5. The chances read CGY 2.7, DET 4.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+0.1
goals above expected
DET4.87 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY2.70 expected · 2 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 17:35CGYM. Frost1–0
  2. P2 01:03DETP. Kane1–1
  3. P2 05:06DETE. Finnie1–2
  4. P2 06:37DETP. Kane1–3
  5. P2 07:23CGYM. Coronato2–3
  6. P2 11:45DETM. SeiderPP2–4
  7. P3 18:55DETD. ShineEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
39 shots
2
Final
76 shots
DET
37 shots
5
CGY attackDET attack
CGY DET Goal
39
shots · 2 in
37
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYDET
0 / 2
0.57 xG
High danger
4 / 8
2.47 xG
0 / 15
1.60 xG
Medium
0 / 17
1.97 xG
2 / 35
0.53 xG
Low
1 / 26
0.44 xG

The Red Wings buried 4 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Wolf
+0.9
CGY · 20/24
B
J. Gibson
+0.7
DET · 25/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings run the Flames 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 11–8
  1. 17:35CGYM. Frost(M. Gridin, M. Coronato)1–0
2ndshots 12–10
  1. 01:03DETP. Kane(A. DeBrincat)1–1
  2. 05:06DETE. Finnie(A. Johansson, L. Raymond)1–2
  3. 06:37DETP. Kane(A. DeBrincat, J. Compher)1–3
  4. 07:23CGYM. Coronato2–3
  5. 11:45DETM. Seiderpower play(A. DeBrincat, J. Compher)2–4
3rdshots 4–7
  1. 18:55DETD. Shineempty net2–5

score reads CGY–DET

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.87
DET chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.060
DET puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
49.5%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.70Expected goals4.87
DET 64% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal25
2High-danger chances8
52All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: CGY 54% · DET 46%
Faceoffs · DET won38%off50%neu35%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CGY0 / 2 · 0.57 xG
DET4 / 8 · 2.47 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CGY0 / 15 · 1.60 xG
DET0 / 17 · 1.97 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CGY2 / 35 · 0.53 xG
DET1 / 26 · 0.44 xG

DET went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 1.97 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CGY
2 G · 2.70 xG · -0.7
DET
5 G · 4.87 xG · +0.1
0123456

CGY finished -0.7 against expected, DET +0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CGY
WRIST1/13
SNAP0/10
SLAP0/6
TIP IN1/6
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/13
DET
WRIST1/14
SNAP2/15
SLAP0/4
TIP IN1/2
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/14
CGY
DET
Off the rush
2 G on 25
1.59 xG
5 G on 28
4.13 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.84 xG
0 G on 3
0.46 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 1-for-13, DET 1-for-14. DET scored 5 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 · 20/24 · .833
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/82.5-1.5
Medium0/172.0+2.0
Low1/260.4-0.6

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

J. Gibson
DET · 25/27 · .926
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.6+0.6
Medium0/151.6+1.6
Low2/350.5-1.5

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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CGY
39 shots
2
Final
76 shots
DET
37 shots
5
CGY attackDET attack
CGY DET Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY left, DET 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. DeBrincat
#93 · R · DET
0 G · 3 A · 6 SOG · 20:03 on ice · +1
J. Compher
#37 · L · DET
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:15 on ice · +1
P. Kane
#88 · R · DET
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:24 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Mar 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:27 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 2.4–2.6 goal spread with the Red Wings at 54% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The underlying numbers explain the symmetry.

Both teams sport identical 49.0% Corsi. Detroit holds a modest shot-quality edge at 49.0% xG% versus Calgary's 47.0%. The real differentiator: both teams' PDO sits at 0.985. For Calgary, running cold means positive regression is due. Detroit simply matches its underlying talent.

Blake Coleman leads Calgary's offense at 0.89 xG/60 with 16 goals and 12 assists, including two high-danger chances at an 11.4% shooting rate. Matt Coronato (0.80 xG/60, 10 goals, 16 assists) converts at 6.6%—low for a scoring contributor, suggesting volume compensates for efficiency. Alex DeBrincat commands Detroit's attack at 0.88 xG/60 with 17 goals and 28 assists, two high-danger, at 9.0% conversion. Marco Kasper (0.81 xG/60, 7 goals, 8 assists) adds one high-danger goal at 6.1%, handling secondary scoring.

The offensive structures are nearly identical. Calgary generates 0% from high-danger chances and 0% from rebounds—all offense comes from play-driving rather than chaos. Detroit mirrors this exactly. Where each team shows defensive vulnerability becomes decisive. Matt Coronato is Calgary's weak link; Axel Sandin-Pellikka is Detroit's.

Coleman and DeBrincat will decide this. The team better at exploiting vulnerability while defending it wins. Calgary's PDO discount offers regression tailwind. Detroit lacks that advantage. In margins this narrow, that's the edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DET 54%
54%
DET
Model favorite
46%
54%
CGY50DET

DET by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.4–2.6 DET; 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 →DET
47.0%49.0%
49.0%49.0%
2.362.38
2.662.50
1.761.73
2.152.07
0.9850.985

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
CGY
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
DET
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.985
CGY PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.985
DET 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' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
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
DET
Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
Marco Kasper7G 8A
0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page