The Flames survived a lopsided shot chart to beat the Ducks 5–3, converting their limited chances while Anaheim squandered offensive volume into a losing margin.

Anaheim fired 39 shots and controlled 66% of shot attempts, yet scored only three goals. Calgary generated just 20 shots but buried five. The discrepancy reflected shot quality: Calgary's attempts carried 0.109 expected goals per shot, nearly double Anaheim's 0.060. When one team takes two-thirds of the chances and still loses, it's not playing better—it's playing more and scoring worse.

D. Cooley (CGY) saved 1.83 goals above his expected performance on 36 saves, stealing the game. V. Husso (ANA) posted a 0.789 save percentage, overperforming his expected by 1.34, but it wasn't enough to mask the underlying offensive failure. Anaheim underperformed its expected goals by 1.83 runs—a telling collapse.

The high-danger tally painted a starker picture. Calgary generated 11 dangerous chances to Anaheim's six, a 2-to-1 ratio that foreshadowed the scoreline. The Ducks created 10 rebound opportunities and converted just one, crashing the net without finish.

Where Anaheim found success, it came from structure. The Ducks scored twice from rush situations on 34 chances—a lethal conversion rate. Calgary, by contrast, scored five times from 24 rush attempts, dominating the transition game.

M. Frost's wrist shot from the slot in the third period proved the turning point, extending Calgary's lead and closing out the upset. Frost added another goal in 15:32 of ice time. J. Farabee chipped in a goal and assist in 15:42, while M. Gridin posted a goal and an assist in 14:02.

This was Calgary suppressing a volume-shooting opponent through concentrated danger and goaltending. Anaheim's lesson: volume without precision is expensive.

The model projects a 2.5 to 2.9 game favoring Anaheim, with the Ducks at 57% win probability.

Anaheim owns the underlying play. The Ducks drive 52.0% xG% to Calgary's 47.0%, and control territory at 52.0% Corsi% versus 49.0%—a territorial tilt the model already recognizes. The gap is modest but directional: Anaheim generates chances, Calgary allows them.

Both teams are running cold on PDO, which creates the regression story. Calgary sits at 0.985 and Anaheim at 0.981—below-neutral luck for both, due for a positive swing. Which team's luck breaks first determines the outcome. Here, the Ducks' superior underlying metrics suggest they'll emerge better.

Calgary's weakness is acute. Over their last 10, the Flames sit -5 in goal differential, and their attack leans on a narrow core. Blake Coleman generates the most danger at 0.89 xG per 60 with 16 goals, 12 assists, and 2 high-danger goals, converting at 11.4%. Matt Coronato carries 0.80 xG per 60 with only a 6.6% shooting rate—a sign that negative regression could deepen before positive regression arrives.

Anaheim's depth is less top-heavy. Cutter Gauthier leads with 25 goals and 16 assists on 0.99 xG per 60, while Beckett Sennecke matches his underlying volume at 1.03 xG per 60 with 20 goals, 19 assists, and 8 high-danger goals. Sennecke's 13.5% shooting rate suggests durability, not fluky conversion. Both drive and convert at elite rates.

The goaltending angle tilts Anaheim's way. D. Wolf is on a back-to-back—look for a backup start or a tired starter, either way giving the Ducks an opening.

The Flames defense leaks opportunities early and often. The Ducks take them. This isn't a flashy mismatch; it's a model recognizing that elite underlying play plus regression tailwinds plus depth advantage compounds. At 57%, the Ducks are the lean.