Backcheck
Recap · CHI at CGY

Blackhawks shut out the Flames, 4-0

The Blackhawks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.16–2.97 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 3:00 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CHI
Chicago Blackhawks
4
Home
CGY
Calgary Flames
0
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.16Expected goals2.97
58% share for the better side
27Shot attempts (SOG)33
3High-danger chances4
47Corsi (all attempts)56
Score-adjusted: 41% / 59%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Blackhawks shut out the Flames 4-0 on a night when every shot-quality metric said Calgary should have won. The Flames controlled 58% of expected goals at 5v5, held 55% of shot attempts (33–27), and generated a 4–3 edge in high-danger chances. Yet they scored zero. S. Knight posted a 1.000 SV% on 33 saves, stopping 2.97 goals above expected. This was theft.

Connor Bedard's wrist shot from the doorstep at 18:01 of the third period was the turning point. C. Bedard finished with 1G and 3A in 21:32. T. Bertuzzi added 2G in 19:58. A. Burakovsky contributed 1G and 1A in 19:09.

The variance magnitude is rare. The Flames underperformed their expected goals by 2.97, leaving the full value of their 2.97 xG on the ice. The Blackhawks outperformed theirs by 1.84, converting at a rate their 2.16 xG could not predict. Chicago was lethal off the rush, scoring 4 times on 22 chances. Both teams created 3 rebound opportunities; neither capitalized.

D. Wolf gave up 1.84 goals above expected. The damage compounded: Chicago finished where Calgary could not.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CHI1 / 3 · 0.90 xG
CGY0 / 4 · 0.98 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CHI3 / 8 · 0.73 xG
CGY0 / 15 · 1.47 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CHI0 / 36 · 0.54 xG
CGY0 / 37 · 0.52 xG

CHI went 3-for-8 from medium danger on 0.73 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CHI
4 G · 2.16 xG · +1.8
CGY
0 G · 2.97 xG · -3.0
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
S. KnightCHI
+3.0
D. WolfCGY
-1.8

CHI finished +1.8 against expected, CGY -3.0 — S. Knight (CHI) saved 3.0 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
CHI
WRIST2/25
SNAP1/4
SLAP0/2
TIP IN1/3
BACKHAND0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/13
CGY
WRIST0/31
SNAP0/3
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/4
POKE0/1
OTHER0/10
CHI
CGY
Off the rush
4 G on 22 · 1.67 xG
0 G on 26 · 1.88 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3 · 0.39 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.45 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 2-for-25, CGY 0-for-31. CHI scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
C. Bedard
#98 · C · CHI
1 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 21:32 TOI · +3
T. Bertuzzi
#59 · L · CHI
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:58 TOI · +3
A. Burakovsky
#28 · L · CHI
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:09 TOI · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • CHI stole this one. CGY owned 58% of the xG and lost.
  • S. Knight (CHI) stopped 3.0 goals above expected.
  • D. Wolf (CGY) gave up 1.8 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • CHI was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 22 rush chances.
  • CGY created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CHI created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CGY underperformed xG by 3.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • CHI outperformed their expected goals by 1.8 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
  • S. Knight (CHI) saved 3.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CHI at CGY · 9:00 PM ET

The Flames are the model's lean over the Blackhawks — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 11, 2:59 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

56%
CGY
Model favorite
44%
56%
CHI50CGY

CGY by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 2.42.8 CGY; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

CHI← edge
edge →CGY
42.0%5v5 xG%47.0%
46.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.17xGF / 602.36
2.94xGA / 602.66
1.84Goals for / gm1.76
2.41Goals against / gm2.15
0.996PDO — luck, not skill0.985

CGY holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.996 vs 0.985) says CHI has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Calgary's underlying play gives the model a clear lean here. The Flames control 5v5 at 47.0% expected goals to Chicago's 42.0%, translating to a 56% win projection and a 2.4-2.8 goal differential. But the real edge sits deeper — PDO regression.

The Flames are running cold at 0.985 PDO, finishing below what their quality of chance dictates. That's not bad luck to complain about; it's predictable mean reversion waiting to happen. When regression normalizes, the gap widens.

Chicago's offensive engine turns on Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard. Bertuzzi runs 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals and 7 high-danger goals. Bedard posts 0.82 xG/60, 17 goals, and an 11.8% shooting rate — that efficiency lag against his volume suggests imminent positive variance. Calgary counters with Blake Coleman (0.89 xG/60, 16G, 11.4% shooting) and Matt Coronato (0.80 xG/60, 10G, 6.6% shooting). Coronato's shooting efficiency appears suppressed relative to his offensive role, marking him as a potential breakout if usage expands.

Defensively, Chicago exposes Anton Frondell in transition. Coronato operates as Calgary's inverse — an offensive talent with defensive liabilities that complicate matchup strategy.

Goaltending adds a fatigue variable. Both D. Wolf and S. Knight are on back-to-backs, inviting either starter to dip or cede net to a fresher arm mid-game.

A final wrinkle: both teams register 0% high-danger goals and 0% rebound goals, a statistical aberration that reverts to mean. When it does, the differential moves Calgary's way.

The model has Calgary. The underlying metrics support it.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

CHI
Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
Connor Bedard17G 27A
0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters