Backcheck
Recap · CGY at CHI

Blackhawks pull away from the Flames

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

By the ModelJul 11, 4:39 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CGY
Calgary Flames
2
Home
CHI
Chicago Blackhawks
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.34Expected goals2.57
52% share for the better side
21Shot attempts (SOG)23
3High-danger chances2
49Corsi (all attempts)50
Score-adjusted: 53% / 47%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Blackhawks dominated the Flames 5-2, yet expected goals finished 2.57–2.34—a far tighter contest than the scoreboard suggested.

This wasn't dominance by underlying metrics. Chicago held 52% of shot attempts (23–21 on goal) and 52% of expected goals. They outshot Calgary marginally. But Chicago finished ruthlessly, converting at an elite rate. D. Wolf struggled in net, posting a 0.818 save percentage—1.4 goals worse than expected.

A. Soderblom stopped 19 of 21 for a 0.905 mark. Chicago's rush finishing was devastating: four goals on 23 attempts versus Calgary's two on 19.

Connor Bedard scored three goals in 20:01, driving the Chicago attack. R. Andersson answered for Calgary with a goal and assist, while O. Moore added a goal and assist for Chicago. Bedard's individual output proved decisive.

The underlying possession and shot metrics favored Chicago modestly. What separated the teams was finishing. Chicago overperformed their expected goals by 2.43, a substantial margin driven by clinical execution. Calgary, despite generating more high-danger opportunities (three to two), couldn't convert.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CGY1 / 3 · 0.69 xG
CHI1 / 2 · 0.79 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CGY1 / 11 · 1.12 xG
CHI4 / 11 · 1.20 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CGY0 / 35 · 0.52 xG
CHI0 / 37 · 0.58 xG

CHI went 4-for-11 from medium danger on 1.20 expected goals — 2.8 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CGY
2 G · 2.34 xG · -0.3
CHI
5 G · 2.57 xG · +2.4
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
D. WolfCGY
-1.4
A. SoderblomCHI
+0.3

CGY finished -0.3 against expected, CHI +2.4 — D. Wolf (CGY) allowed 1.4 more goals than expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CGY
WRIST2/24
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP0/3
POKE0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
TIP IN0/1
OTHER0/14
CHI
WRIST2/20
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND1/5
SNAP1/3
POKE1/2
DEFLECTED0/0
TIP IN0/0
OTHER0/16
CGY
CHI
Off the rush
2 G on 19 · 1.51 xG
4 G on 23 · 1.85 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.23 xG
0 G on 0 · 0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 2-for-24, CHI 2-for-20. 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
3 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 20:01 TOI · +2
R. Andersson
#4 · D · CGY
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:13 TOI · -1
O. Moore
#11 · C · CHI
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 13:48 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • D. Wolf (CGY) gave up 1.4 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • CHI was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • CGY was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 19 rush chances.
  • CHI outperformed their expected goals by 2.4 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CGY at CHI · 8:30 PM ET

Flames at Blackhawks: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 4:45 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
CGY
Model favorite
52%
48%
CGY50CHI

CGY by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CGY 2.62.5 CHI; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

CGY← edge
edge →CHI
47.0%5v5 xG%42.0%
49.0%Corsi%46.0%
2.36xGF / 602.17
2.66xGA / 602.94
1.76Goals for / gm1.84
2.15Goals against / gm2.41
0.985PDO — luck, not skill0.996

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

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model favors Calgary at 52%, but barely. A projected 2.6-2.5 game lands this squarely in pick'em territory.

Calgary owns the underlying play. At 5v5, they're generating 47.0% expected goals to Chicago's 42.0%, and leading 49.0% in Corsi to the Hawks' 46.0%. But the Flames are down 5 goals over their last 10 with a 0.985 PDO—well below neutral. That's the regression edge: they're playing better than their recent results suggest.

The Flames' output comes from Blake Coleman and Matt Coronato. Coleman operates at 0.89 expected goals per 60 with 16 goals and 12 assists, including 2 high-danger goals on 11.4% shooting. Coronato is at 0.80 xG/60 with 10 goals and 16 assists on 6.6% shooting.

Chicago leans on Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard. Bertuzzi sits at 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals and 15 assists, 7 high-danger goals, and 18.0% shooting. Bedard is at 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals and 27 assists, 5 high-danger goals on 11.8% shooting.

Calgary has the structural advantage and positive regression ahead. But Chicago's individual heat—Bertuzzi and Bedard executing at high rates—narrows the gap. The model's coin flip reflects that tension.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters