Backcheck
Recap · SJS at CGY

Flames shut out the Sharks, 2-0

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

By the ModelJul 11, 3:57 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
SJS
San Jose Sharks
0
Home
CGY
Calgary Flames
2
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.19Expected goals5.01
70% share for the better side
17Shot attempts (SOG)36
4High-danger chances10
42Corsi (all attempts)78
Score-adjusted: 37% / 63%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Calgary's 2-0 victory masks a more dominant underlying story: the Flames controlled 70% of 5v5 expected goals (5.01–2.19) and 68% of shot attempts (36–17). They underperformed their xG by 3.01 goals despite that advantage—elite chance creation met poor finish. Y. Askarov overperformed by 4.01, limiting the damage in a losing effort for San Jose.

The Sharks generated four high-danger chances against Calgary's 10, but had no defense for Calgary's rush. The Flames scored both goals on 38 rush attempts, punishing transition play efficiently. Calgary created three rebound opportunities and converted none—the chances existed; the finish didn't.

D. Wolf (17/17, 1.000 SV%, +2.19) was equally sharp in a game Calgary dominated. Samuel Honzek's wrist shot from the wing at 19:55 of the third period proved the game's defining moment. M. Backlund earned the primary assist over 16:00 of ice time, while B. Coleman and S. Honzek—who scored—played 15:19 and 15:18 respectively.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS0 / 4 · 0.83 xG
CGY2 / 10 · 2.94 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS0 / 11 · 1.03 xG
CGY0 / 11 · 1.21 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS0 / 27 · 0.34 xG
CGY0 / 57 · 0.86 xG

CGY went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.21 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
0 G · 2.19 xG · -2.2
CGY
2 G · 5.01 xG · -3.0
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
Y. AskarovSJS
+4.0
D. WolfCGY
+2.2

SJS finished -2.2 against expected, CGY -3.0 — Y. Askarov (SJS) saved 4.0 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SJS
WRIST0/14
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/2
SNAP0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/15
CGY
WRIST2/37
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/4
SNAP0/4
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/26
SJS
CGY
Off the rush
0 G on 18 · 1.65 xG
2 G on 38 · 4.35 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.23 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.43 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 0-for-14, CGY 2-for-37. CGY scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Backlund
#11 · C · CGY
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:00 TOI · +2
B. Coleman
#20 · L · CGY
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 15:19 TOI · +2
S. Honzek
#29 · L · CGY
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 15:18 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • Y. Askarov (SJS) stopped 4.0 goals above expected.
  • CGY was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 38 rush chances.
  • CGY created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CGY underperformed xG by 3.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • SJS underperformed xG by 2.2 — wasted quality chances.
  • Y. Askarov (SJS) saved 4.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • D. Wolf (CGY) saved 2.2 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · SJS at CGY · 9:00 PM ET

Sharks at Flames: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 3:56 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
CGY
Model favorite
48%
52%
SJS50CGY

CGY by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SJS 2.52.6 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

SJS← edge
edge →CGY
48.0%5v5 xG%47.0%
47.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.33xGF / 602.36
2.56xGA / 602.66
1.99Goals for / gm1.76
2.32Goals against / gm2.15
0.998PDO — luck, not skill0.985

The season numbers split 33 — no clear process edge — and PDO (0.998 vs 0.985) says SJS has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a SJS 2.5–2.6 CGY game with the Flames at 52% win probability, which is about as close to a pick'em as you'll get. Both teams are operating at nearly identical underlying strength.

The Sharks are the hotter team by points pace, running 7-2-1 in their last 10. San Jose's shot generation—48.0% expected goals and 47.0% Corsi (shot volume)—is nearly matched by Calgary at 47.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi%, meaning neither team has pulled away structurally.

The Flames are running cold. Their 0.985 PDO—a measure of scoring luck—signals positive regression: they've earned more chances than results show. San Jose's 0.998 is neutral, suggesting less room for variance swings.

Goaltending could decide this. D. Wolf and Y. Askarov are both on back-to-backs, so watch for either a backup start or a tired starter.

Pavol Regenda leads San Jose with 1.10 xG/60 and 5G 1A, though marked inactive. Igor Chernyshov offers 0.91 xG/60 and 6G 8A. Calgary's Blake Coleman posts 0.89 xG/60 with 16G 12A, a far more consistent contributor. Matt Coronato generates 0.80 xG/60 but has just 10G and 16 assists on a 6.6% shooting rate—evidence that puck luck has eluded him.

The Flames are due. A team generating chances at their underlying rate should have won more games. They're the safer expected-value play. San Jose's recent form and nearly identical metrics, though, make this exactly what 52% looks like: a genuine coin flip where either team is equipped to win.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

SJS
Pavol Regenda5G 1A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% 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