Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Mon, Oct 26 · the slate
Breakdown · TOR at CGY

Flames pull away from the Maple Leafs

FinalMon, Oct 26
TORToronto Maple Leafs2CGYCalgary Flames5
The verdict · earned

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

TOR 2 · CGY 5
◆ By the ModelOct 26, 11:37 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Raw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Flames rolled past the Maple Leafs 5-2 and the underlying numbers backed it up — they controlled 57% of 5v5 expected goals (5.18–3.98).

The numbers behind the result. The Flames held 56% of shot attempts (35–27 on goal). Expected goals finished 5.18–3.98 (57–43% split), and high-danger chances went 6–4.

Variance watch. The Maple Leafs underperformed their xG by 1.98 goals.

Turning point. Martin Pospisil's wrist shot from the wing (P3, 19:21).

The goals

  • CGY 0–1, 10:05 of the first. M. Gridin, wrist shot from 26 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past S. Bobrovsky. Assists: M. Pospisil, S. Nemec. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • CGY 0–2, 11:50 of the first. M. Backlund, wrist shot from 26 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past S. Bobrovsky. Assists: M. Coronato, J. Farabee. Win probability moved 12 points.
  • CGY 0–3, 00:25 of the second on the power play. M. Gridin, wrist shot from 21 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past S. Bobrovsky. Assists: Z. Parekh, D. Cooley. Win probability moved 8 points.
  • TOR 1–3, 12:54 of the second. E. Cowan, tip-in from 13 feet, a 9% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Cooley. Assists: T. Stecher, M. Rielly. Win probability moved 7 points.
  • TOR 2–3, 06:06 of the third. W. Nylander, snap shot from 12 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Cooley. Assists: J. Roslovic, A. Matthews. Win probability moved 13 points.
  • CGY 2–4, 18:35 of the third into an empty net. J. Farabee, wrist shot from 19 feet, an 82% chance by the model (off the rush). Assists: M. Coronato, Y. Kuznetsov. 3 seconds after a CGY blocked shot by D. Raddysh.
  • CGY 2–5, 19:21 of the third into an empty net. M. Pospisil, wrist shot from 51 feet, a 47% chance by the model. Assists: M. Gridin, S. Nemec.

Goaltending

  • S. Bobrovsky (TOR): 30/33 saves, 0.909 SV% (+2.18 vs expected)
  • D. Cooley (CGY): 25/27 saves, 0.926 SV% (+1.98 vs expected)

Storylines

  • S. Bobrovsky (TOR) stopped 2.2 goals above expected.
  • CGY was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 33 rush chances.
  • TOR was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • CGY created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • TOR created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • TOR underperformed xG by 2.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • D. Cooley (CGY) saved 2.0 goals above expected — stole the show.

Final: TOR 2 – CGY 5

Data: NHL play-by-play and shift charts, Backcheck xG model

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 26
TOR
2
CGY
5

Flames pull away from the Maple Leafs

Chances 4.0 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
3.98
CGY
5.18
43% of the chances57%

The board read TOR 2, CGY 5. The chances read TOR 4.0, CGY 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
−0.2
goals above expected
CGY5.18 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR3.98 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Maple Leafs left 2.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+15
win-probability points
54% → 69% for CGY
CGY 100%the game, start to finish
TOR 100%P1 · P2 · P3
CGYP1 10:05

M. Gridin makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 10:05CGYM. Gridin10%0–1
  2. P1 11:50CGYM. Backlund11%0–2
  3. P2 00:25CGYM. GridinPP10%0–3
  4. P2 12:54TORE. Cowan9%1–3
  5. P3 06:06TORW. Nylander14%2–3
  6. P3 18:35CGYJ. FarabeeEN82%2–4
  7. P3 19:21CGYM. PospisilEN47%2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
40 shots
2
Final
91 shots
CGY
51 shots
5
TOR attackCGY attack
TOR CGY Goal
40
shots · 2 in
51
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORCGY
0 / 4
1.54 xG
High danger
2 / 6
2.32 xG
2 / 19
2.08 xG
Medium
3 / 25
2.44 xG
0 / 22
0.36 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.42 xG

The Maple Leafs went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Cooley
+2.0
CGY · 25/27 · 59:38
Best save · a 94% chance, wrap-around from 3 ft · P1 03:42
B+
S. Bobrovsky
+0.9
TOR · 30/33 · 58:55
Best save · a 32% chance, snap from 6 ft · P3 15:01
Best skater on the ice
A+
CGY
M. Gridin
R · impact 2.91
16:11
Ice time
2–1
G – A
0.33
Own xG
60%
xG share
Impact · top 4
M. Gridin2.9A+
M. Pospisil1.9A+
A. Matthews1.6A+
J. Farabee1.7A
Report card
TORCGY
OffenseAA+
DefenseFF
TransitionFA
Special teamsFC
GoaltendingA+A
DisciplineD-A-
LuckC+B+
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why CGY won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02D. Cooley tilted the crease
  3. 03Clinical in the slot
Why TOR lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03Paraded to the penalty box
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames pull away from the Maple Leafs

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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 8–11
  1. 10:05CGYM. Gridin(M. Pospisil, S. Nemec)0–1

    Wrist shot from 26 feet, a 10% chance (off the rush), past S. Bobrovsky. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: K. Bahl, B. Othmann, S. Nemec, A. Klapka, J. Castagna · against O. Ekman-Larsson, T. Blueger, D. Mermis, B. Duhaime, Z. MacEwen

  2. 11:50CGYM. Backlund(M. Coronato, J. Farabee)0–2

    Wrist shot from 26 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past S. Bobrovsky. Win probability moved 12 points.On the ice: M. Backlund, J. Farabee, K. Bahl, M. Coronato, S. Nemec · against M. Rielly, J. Roslovic, A. Matthews, T. Stecher, E. Cowan

2ndshots 11–13
  1. 00:25CGYM. Gridinpower play(Z. Parekh, D. Cooley)0–3

    Wrist shot from 21 feet, a 10% chance (off the rush), past S. Bobrovsky. Win probability moved 8 points.On the ice: R. Strome, K. Bahl, Y. Sharangovich, S. Nemec, M. Gridin · against O. Ekman-Larsson, N. Paul, D. Mermis, W. Nylander, K. Marchenko

  2. 12:54TORE. Cowan(T. Stecher, M. Rielly)1–3

    Tip-in from 13 feet, a 9% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past D. Cooley. Win probability moved 7 points.On the ice: T. Blueger, J. McCabe, D. Raddysh, B. Duhaime, Z. MacEwen · against K. Bahl, B. Othmann, S. Nemec, A. Klapka, J. Castagna

3rdshots 8–11
  1. 06:06TORW. Nylander(J. Roslovic, A. Matthews)2–3

    Snap shot from 12 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past D. Cooley. Win probability moved 13 points.On the ice: O. Ekman-Larsson, N. Paul, D. Mermis, E. Cowan, G. McKenna · against R. Strome, J. Middleton, Z. Whitecloud, M. Pospisil, M. Gridin

  2. 18:35CGYJ. Farabeeempty net(M. Coronato, Y. Kuznetsov)2–4

    Wrist shot from 19 feet, an 82% chance, a near-certain one (off the rush). 3s after a CGY block.

  3. 19:21CGYM. Pospisilempty net(M. Gridin, S. Nemec)2–5

    Wrist shot from 51 feet, a 47% chance.

score reads TOR–CGY

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.18
CGY chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.027
CGY puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
60.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.98Expected goals5.18
CGY 57% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal35
4High-danger chances6
45All attempts (Corsi)70
Adjusted for score: TOR 44% · CGY 56%
Faceoffs · CGY won53%off44%neu32%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TOR0 / 4 · 1.54 xG
CGY2 / 6 · 2.32 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TOR2 / 19 · 2.08 xG
CGY3 / 25 · 2.44 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TOR0 / 22 · 0.36 xG
CGY0 / 39 · 0.42 xG

TOR went 0-for-4 from high danger on 1.54 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TOR
2 G · 3.98 xG · -2.0
CGY
5 G · 5.18 xG · -0.2
0123456

TOR finished -2.0 against expected, CGY -0.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TOR
WRIST0/24
TIP IN1/6
SNAP1/3
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/6
CGY
WRIST5/29
TIP IN0/11
SNAP0/8
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/18
TOR
CGY
Off the rush
2 G on 26
2.38 xG
4 G on 33
3.86 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
1.05 xG
0 G on 3
0.32 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 0-for-24, CGY 5-for-29. CGY scored 4 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
S. Bobrovsky
TOR · 30/33 · .909
started · 58:55
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
Attempts faced
49
Avg chance faced
7.9%
Stopped vs expected
0.939 vs 0.921
Rebounds allowed
3
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium3/252.4-0.6
Low0/200.4+0.4
Shorthanded1/121.0-0.0
Tips & deflections0/110.9+0.9
The save
32% chance stopped, a snap from 6 ft · P3 15:01
The one to have back
10% chance went in, a wrist from 26 ft · P1 10:05

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. Cooley
CGY · 25/27 · .926
started · 59:38
+2.0
saved above expected
A
the night
Attempts faced
39
Avg chance faced
10.2%
Stopped vs expected
0.949 vs 0.898
Rebounds allowed
3
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.5+1.5
Medium2/192.1+0.1
Low0/160.4+0.4
Shorthanded0/70.5+0.5
Tips & deflections1/60.5-0.5
The save
94% chance stopped, a wrap-around from 3 ft · P1 03:42
The one to have back
9% chance went in, a tip-in from 13 ft · P2 12:54

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

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: M. Gridin (CGY), 16:11 of ice, 2-1, 60% of the expected goals while he was out.

TOR18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
A. MatthewsC19:000-190A+
E. CowanR15:301-078A
J. RoslovicC18:430-181A
M. RiellyD19:270-167A
T. StecherD22:040-163B
W. NylanderR19:141-051B
Z. MacEwenR10:120-064B
K. MarchenkoR7:050-074C
B. DuhaimeL11:110-047C
D. RaddyshD23:490-043C
G. McKennaL14:500-052C
T. BluegerC14:270-042D
O. Ekman-LarssonD19:140-040D
N. PaulL17:350-042D
J. McCabeD18:170-046D
V. LettieriC11:540-036D
D. MermisD13:330-035F
C. SissonsC14:170-09F
CGY18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
M. GridinR16:112-160A+
M. PospisilC12:201-164A+
J. FarabeeL24:081-139A
Z. ParekhD20:160-167A
M. CoronatoR18:440-236B
A. SunievL14:250-069B
Y. KuznetsovD13:570-157B
M. FrostC16:110-065B
S. NemecD21:510-230C
R. StromeC13:480-055C
Z. WhitecloudD17:450-049C
M. BacklundC18:321-015C
B. OthmannL9:220-057D
J. CastagnaC10:200-052D
Y. SharangovichC16:470-043D
A. KlapkaR11:480-046F
J. MiddletonD16:140-033F
K. BahlD21:430-030F

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, TOR: B. Groulx, C. McWard. Scratched, CGY: J. Hanley, B. Jones, M. Tsyplakov. Referees Frederick L'Ecuyer and Stephen Hiff; linesmen CJ Murray and Trent Knorr.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionTORCGY
Offense
▸Basis

TOR Created 3.98 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (1.54 xG) and 26 rush shots (2.38 xG).

CGY Created 5.18 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 6 high-danger shots (2.32 xG) and 33 rush shots (3.86 xG).

A
96
A+
100
Defense
▸Basis

TOR Allowed 5.18 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 6 high-danger shots (2.32 xG) and 33 rush shots (3.86 xG).

CGY Allowed 3.98 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (1.54 xG) and 26 rush shots (2.38 xG).

F
33
F
54
Transition
▸Basis

TOR Rush shots 26–33, rush xG 2.38–3.86 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

CGY Rush shots 33–26, rush xG 3.86–2.38 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

F
57
A
93
Special teams
▸Basis

TOR 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.54 PP xG.

CGY 1-for-5 on the power play (20%; league ≈21%) with 0.92 PP xG.

F
59
C
75
Goaltending
▸Basis

TOR +2.18 goals saved above expected on 33 shots against.

CGY +1.98 goals saved above expected on 27 shots against.

A+
97
A
95
Discipline
▸Basis

TOR Took 8 penalties for 19 PIM vs 5 for 13 on the other side.

CGY Took 5 penalties for 13 PIM vs 8 for 19 on the other side.

D-
60
A-
90
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

TOR Finishing -1.98 goals vs xG plus +2.18 GSAx of save luck = +0.20 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

CGY Finishing -0.18 goals vs xG plus +1.98 GSAx of save luck = +1.80 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C+
77
B+
89
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
STRENGTHCGY

Dangerous off the rush

4 goals on 33 rush shots worth 3.86 xG.

WARNINGTOR

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 33 rush shots worth 3.86 xG (4 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHTOR

S. Bobrovsky stole it

S. Bobrovsky stopped 30 of 33 (0.909) — +2.18 goals saved above expected in a 3-goal game.

WARNINGCGY

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 26 rush shots worth 2.38 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHTOR

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 26 rush shots worth 2.38 xG.

LUCKTOR

Cold finishing night

Scored 2 on 3.98 xG — -1.98 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TOR
40 shots
2
Final
91 shots
CGY
51 shots
5
TOR attackCGY attack
TOR CGY Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR 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
M. Gridin
#92 · R · CGY
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 16:11 on ice · +2
J. Farabee
#86 · L · CGY
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:08 on ice · +2
S. Nemec
#71 · D · CGY
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:51 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Oct 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 26, 9:01 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

Nothing in the numbers separates these clubs. The model calls it about as close to a pick'em as the schedule produces, and the Flames get the narrowest of edges.

The model projects a TOR 3.2 - 3.3 CGY game. Calgary's win probability sits at 51%, a lean rather than a verdict.

Toronto has the better process at even strength. Its share of expected goals is 48.4%, which means it has been creating the better scoring chances. Calgary's share is 44.3%.

Calgary counters with volume. The Flames hold 51.0% of shot attempts, a territorial edge that suggests they will spend more time with the puck in the other side's end.

Toronto also arrives in form, at 6-2-2 over its last 10 games. Calgary has been on the wrong side of results, with a goal differential of -16 over the same stretch.

The Flames' luck looks poor. Their PDO, a combined shooting and save-percentage figure, is 0.935. That means they are running cold and are due for positive regression.

In goal, A. Stolarz has been slightly ahead of expectation, with +0.6 goals saved beyond what an average goalie would have stopped on the shots he faced over 5 games. His save percentage is 90.7%.

D. Cooley has the stronger case, at +2.8 goals saved beyond the average over 5 games. His save percentage is 91.2%.

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CGY 51%
51%
CGY
Model favorite
49%
51%
TOR50CGY

CGY by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TOR 3.2–3.3 CGY; 16% 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
TOR← edge
edge →CGY
48.4%44.3%
47.0%51.0%
3.162.81
3.373.53
3.852.30
3.083.90
1.0020.935

TOR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.935) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TOR
6-2-2
+10 GD · 1d rest
CGY
4-6-0
-16 GD · 1d rest
1.002
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.935
CGY PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICAL

The Maple Leafs own the underlying play

The Maple Leafs own the underlying play — 48.4% 5v5 xG vs 44.3%.

TACTICAL

The Flames drive Corsi at 51.0%

The Flames drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.

WARNINGCGY

Regression watch: Flames

The Flames' PDO is 0.935 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

TACTICAL

No daylight between these two

Win probability splits 51%–49% — margins decide this one.

Where the edges live
  • The Maple Leafs own the underlying play — 48.4% 5v5 xG vs 44.3%.
  • The Flames drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.935 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Maple Leafs own the underlying play — 48.4% 5v5 xG vs 44.3%.
  • The Flames drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Goalie matchup: A. Stolarz (+0.6 GSAx in 5 GP, 90.7% SV) vs D. Cooley (+2.8 GSAx in 5 GP, 91.2% SV).
  • The Maple Leafs are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 over their last 10).
  • The Flames are underwater at -16 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Flames' PDO is 0.935 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TOR
vs EDM · Sat, Oct 24
Expected in goal
A. Stolarz
1 day rest.938 last start60:00 played
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · +1.3 GSAx this season
Forwards · 12
  • C. Sissons15:30
  • Z. MacEwen09:39
  • N. Paul15:59
  • B. Duhaime13:29
  • A. Matthews17:13
  • E. Cowan15:20
  • V. Lettieri10:57
  • T. Blueger14:36
  • K. Marchenko15:47
  • W. Nylander15:59
  • G. McKenna11:29
  • J. Roslovic15:37
Defence · 6
  • J. McCabe21:40
  • T. Stecher24:21
  • D. Mermis14:22
  • D. Raddysh21:39
  • M. Rielly18:51
  • O. Ekman-Larsson19:09
CGY
vs DET · Sat, Oct 24
Expected in goal
D. Cooley
1 day rest.966 last start60:00 played
Backup Dustin Wolf · -7.8 GSAx this season
Forwards · 12
  • M. Frost12:20
  • Y. Sharangovich12:36
  • B. Jones13:48
  • R. Strome13:38
  • M. Coronato16:09
  • J. Castagna17:16
  • A. Klapka14:03
  • A. Suniev09:54
  • M. Pospisil15:42
  • B. Othmann12:16
  • J. Farabee18:52
  • M. Gridin17:55
Defence · 6
  • K. Bahl25:03
  • Z. Parekh15:40
  • Z. Whitecloud20:31
  • Y. Kuznetsov17:38
  • J. Middleton18:26
  • S. Nemec22:13

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.

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page