Backcheck
Recap · CGY at DAL

Stars run the Flames off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 10:45 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CGY
Calgary Flames
3
Home
DAL
Dallas Stars
4
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.34Expected goals4.64
67% share for the better side
20Shot attempts (SOG)25
4High-danger chances10
48Corsi (all attempts)52
Score-adjusted: 48% / 52%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Dallas won a one-goal game but dominated the underlying metrics: 66% of 5v5 expected goals (4.64–2.34) and high-danger chances (10–4). The scoreboard flatters Calgary.

The quality gap explains the control gap. Dallas generated 0.089 xG per shot; Calgary managed 0.049. One team was hunting chances at the slot, the other taking what it could find.

Goaltending told conflicting stories. J. Oettinger (17/20, 0.850 SV%) notched a strong percentage but played 0.66 goals worse than expected. D. Cooley (21/25, 0.840 SV%) recorded a lower percentage yet played 0.64 goals better than expected.

Both teams were opportunistic off the rush. Dallas scored 3 of 29 chances; Calgary made 2 of 19. Rebound traffic was nearly even — Dallas created four chances (one goal), Calgary three (one goal). The game's full control remained with Dallas.

The game turned on a single shot. Wyatt Johnston's backhander from the doorstep at 03:39 of overtime ended it — the kind of chance the underlying numbers promised Dallas would have all night, finally finished at the end.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CGY0 / 4 · 0.89 xG
DAL3 / 10 · 2.69 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CGY1 / 8 · 0.95 xG
DAL1 / 15 · 1.54 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CGY2 / 36 · 0.50 xG
DAL0 / 27 · 0.40 xG

CGY went 2-for-36 from low danger on 0.50 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CGY
3 G · 2.34 xG · +0.7
DAL
4 G · 4.64 xG · -0.6
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
D. CooleyCGY
+0.6
J. OettingerDAL
-0.7

CGY finished +0.7 against expected, DAL -0.6 — J. Oettinger (DAL) allowed 0.7 more goals than expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CGY
SNAP2/20
TIP IN0/3
WRIST0/1
BACKHAND1/3
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/17
DAL
SNAP3/25
TIP IN0/4
WRIST0/5
BACKHAND1/1
SLAP0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/15
CGY
DAL
Off the rush
2 G on 19 · 1.46 xG
3 G on 29 · 3.78 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3 · 0.59 xG
1 G on 4 · 0.71 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CGY went 2-for-20, DAL 3-for-25. DAL scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Robertson
#21 · L · DAL
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 24:14 TOI
W. Johnston
#53 · C · DAL
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 22:12 TOI
A. Klapka
#43 · R · CGY
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 09:12 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • CGY generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • DAL generated far more dangerous chances — 0.089 xG/shot vs 0.049. Quality over quantity.
  • CGY scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • DAL was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 29 rush chances.
  • CGY was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 19 rush chances.
  • DAL created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CGY created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CGY at DAL · 8:00 PM ET

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

By the ModelJul 12, 10:44 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

56%
DAL
Model favorite
44%
56%
CGY50DAL

DAL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.32.6 DAL; 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 →DAL
47.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
49.0%Corsi%47.0%
2.36xGF / 602.36
2.66xGA / 602.29
1.76Goals for / gm2.07
2.15Goals against / gm1.68
0.985PDO — luck, not skill1.024

DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.985 vs 1.024) says DAL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a Dallas win between 2.3 and 2.6 goals, giving the Stars 56% win probability. Dallas edges Calgary in underlying shot quality, though both teams face regression headwinds. Dallas's PDO is 1.024—running hot and due for comedown. Calgary's PDO is 0.985—running cold and primed for positive regression. The Flames arrive hotter by recent pace, going 6-3-1 in their last 10, which narrows Dallas's advantage.

The Stars' edge resides in expected goals: 51.0% xG to Calgary's 47.0%. Yet Calgary maintains 49.0% Corsi—an edge in possession—while Dallas sits at 47.0%. This split between possession and shot merit reveals the matchup's dynamic: the Stars convert their limited chances more efficiently.

Regression threatens Dallas's baseline. Their 1.024 PDO cannot hold; statistical reversion will erode their advantage. Calgary should see positive movement from 0.985, meaning they outproduce their underlying xG going forward. PDO swings are inherently volatile—Dallas's current run is fragile.

The player matchup leans toward Dallas. Jason Robertson carries 0.96 xG per 60 minutes with 25 goals and 21 assists, including 2 high-danger goals. Michael Bunting adds 0.83 xG per 60, 8 goals, and 14 assists at 7.6% shooting. Blake Coleman anchors Calgary at 0.89 xG per 60 with 16 goals and 12 assists and 2 high-danger goals, but shoots at 11.4%—above Robertson's 12.4%. Matt Coronato supports at 0.80 xG per 60 with 10 goals and 16 assists, yet operates at just 6.6% shooting.

Coleman and Coronato depend on shooting rates that cannot persist. Coleman's 11.4% sits above league average; Coronato's 6.6% sits below. Robertson's 12.4% and Bunting's 7.6% will normalize too. When they do, Dallas's technical edge should prevail.

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
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters