Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Fri, Mar 20 · the slate
Breakdown · FLA at CGY

Flames pull away from the Panthers

FinalFri, Mar 20
FLAFlorida Panthers1CGYCalgary Flames4
The verdict · earned

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

FLA 1 · CGY 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:04 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 Flames won 4-1, but the Panthers underperformed their expected goals by 1.77—they generated 2.77 xG but scored just one. Calgary's volume advantage explained it: 57% of 5v5 expected goals (3.74–2.77), 59% of shot attempts (36–25), and high-danger chances (5–4).

Matt Coronato's wrist shot from the high slot (P3, 17:30) marked the turning point.

Calgary's scoring came from where it mattered most: the power play (two goals on 21 shots, 1.78 xG) and the rush (two goals on 27 attempts). Even though Calgary went 0–5 in high danger—a drought that usually derails contenders—the efficiency elsewhere buried Florida.

D. Wolf stopped 24 of 25 shots (0.960 save percentage), beating expected by 1.77 goals. That's the kind of anchoring performance that amplifies volume control.

D. Tarasov gave Florida a chance: 32/36 saves, plus flawless high-danger defense (five shots, five stops). The Panthers just couldn't manufacture anything behind that. Three rebound opportunities, zero goals. Calgary crashed with more purpose: five rebound ops, one conversion.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 20
FLA
1
CGY
4

Flames pull away from the Panthers

Chances 2.8 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
2.77
CGY
3.74
43% of the chances57%

The board read FLA 1, CGY 4. The chances read FLA 2.8, CGY 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
+0.3
goals above expected
CGY3.74 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA2.77 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 1.8 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 07:44CGYJ. Farabee0–1
  2. P2 10:10CGYV. Olofsson0–2
  3. P3 04:17FLAA. Greer1–2
  4. P3 16:59CGYM. FrostPP1–3
  5. P3 17:30CGYM. CoronatoPP1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
40 shots
1
Final
86 shots
CGY
46 shots
4
FLA attackCGY attack
FLA CGY Goal
40
shots · 1 in
46
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLACGY
0 / 4
0.88 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.19 xG
0 / 11
1.28 xG
Medium
3 / 16
1.77 xG
1 / 36
0.62 xG
Low
1 / 34
0.78 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Wolf
+1.8
CGY · 24/25
D
D. Tarasov
−0.3
FLA · 32/36
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames pull away from the Panthers

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 8–10no goals
    2ndshots 8–10
    1. 07:44CGYJ. Farabee(B. Coleman)0–1
    2. 10:10CGYV. Olofsson(A. Klapka, O. Maatta)0–2
    3rdshots 9–16
    1. 04:17FLAA. Greer(D. Sebrango, T. Nosek)1–2
    2. 16:59CGYM. Frostpower play(Y. Sharangovich, Z. Parekh)1–3
    3. 17:30CGYM. Coronatopower play(M. Gridin, B. Coleman)1–4

    score reads FLA–CGY

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.74
    CGY chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.053
    CGY puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    51.9%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.77Expected goals3.74
    CGY 57% of the chance quality
    25Shots on goal36
    4High-danger chances5
    51All attempts (Corsi)55
    Adjusted for score: FLA 52% · CGY 48%
    Faceoffs · CGY won64%off56%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    FLA0 / 4 · 0.88 xG
    CGY0 / 5 · 1.19 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    FLA0 / 11 · 1.28 xG
    CGY3 / 16 · 1.77 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    FLA1 / 36 · 0.62 xG
    CGY1 / 34 · 0.78 xG

    FLA went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.28 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    FLA
    1 G · 2.77 xG · -1.8
    CGY
    4 G · 3.74 xG · +0.3
    012345

    FLA finished -1.8 against expected, CGY +0.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    FLA
    WRIST1/23
    TIP IN0/6
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/2
    SNAP0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/11
    CGY
    WRIST2/32
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP1/4
    BACKHAND1/4
    SNAP0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/9
    FLA
    CGY
    Off the rush
    0 G on 22
    1.96 xG
    2 G on 27
    2.32 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.37 xG
    1 G on 5
    0.86 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 1-for-23, CGY 2-for-32. CGY 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
    D. Tarasov
    FLA · 32/36 · .889
    -0.3
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.2+1.2
    Medium3/161.8-1.2
    Low1/340.8-0.2

    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 · 24/25 · .960
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium0/111.3+1.3
    Low1/360.6-0.4

    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

    86 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    FLA
    40 shots
    1
    Final
    86 shots
    CGY
    46 shots
    4
    FLA attackCGY attack
    FLA CGY Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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
    B. Coleman
    #20 · L · CGY
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:39 on ice · +1
    Z. Parekh
    #19 · D · CGY
    0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:06 on ice
    M. Gridin
    #92 · R · CGY
    0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:09 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Mar 20
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:13 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 2.6-2.6 game with Calgary at 50% win probability—the definition of a pick'em.

    Both teams are wounded. The Flames are -18 in goal differential over their last 10 games; the Panthers sit -7. Neither is playing well, but the underlying metrics reveal a tier of difference. At even strength, Florida dominates: 49.0% xG% versus Calgary's 47.0%, and 52.0% Corsi% versus Calgary's 49.0%. Those gaps suggest territorial superiority and more dangerous shot generation. Yet both teams carry depressed PDOs—FLA at 0.989, CGY at 0.985—meaning both are running cold and both should expect positive regression.

    The goaltending angle favors Florida. D. Cooley is on a back-to-back, creating uncertainty around freshness at a position where fatigue matters.

    The skater matchup reveals the attacking framework. Florida's attack runs through Sam Bennett, posting 0.97 xG/60 with 18G 19A, 6 HD goals, and a 13.1% shooting rate. Brad Marchand, at 0.93 xG/60, has produced 17G 9A on 19.5% shooting but is likely out after 14 days of inactivity. Calgary counters with Blake Coleman, generating 0.89 xG/60 with 16G 12A and 2 HD goals on 11.4% shooting, and Matt Coronato at 0.80 xG/60 with 10G 16A on 6.6% shooting.

    This is where the 50-50 calculation becomes clear. Florida should win based on possession and shot quality. But both teams share an identical curse: 0% hard-chance goal rates and 0% rebound goal rates. That kind of secondary scoring drought is unsustainable—it will regress before either team's next game. Which direction it moves determines the outcome more than any underlying advantage.

    The edge goes to Florida in territorial control. But the 50-50 projection holds because shooting percentages remain the true tie-breaker in a game this close.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CGY 50%
    50%
    CGY
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    FLA50CGY

    CGY by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 2.6–2.6 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
    FLA← edge
    edge →CGY
    49.0%47.0%
    52.0%49.0%
    2.482.36
    2.562.66
    1.981.76
    2.212.15
    0.9890.985

    FLA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.985) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    FLA
    4-6-0
    -7 GD · 2d rest
    CGY
    3-6-1
    -18 GD · 1d rest
    0.989
    FLA 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 Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • D. Cooley is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Flames are underwater at -18 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Panthers are underwater at -7 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
    FLA
    Expected in goal
    S. Bobrovsky
    2 days rest.773 last start
    Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    CGY
    Expected in goal
    D. Cooley
    back-to-back.962 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
    FLA
    Sam Bennett18G 19A
    0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
    Brad Marchand17G 9A
    0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page