Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
← Thu, Oct 9 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at FLA

Panthers hold off the Flyers

FinalThu, Oct 9
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1FLAFlorida Panthers2
The verdict · earned

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

PHI 1 · FLA 2
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:10 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited 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

Florida's 2–1 victory looked tighter than the game felt. The Panthers commanded 63% of shot attempts and 57% of expected goals—a decisive advantage at the macro level. But the high-danger chances told a different story: Philadelphia actually created six to Florida's five. In a night when both teams massively underperformed their shot quality, Florida won because their superior control of the broader game mattered more than the Flyers' edge in dangerous opportunities.

Finishing was a problem for both teams. Florida went 0–5 on high-danger chances while generating 3.51 expected goals; they underperformed that mark by 1.51. Philadelphia generated 2.64 expected goals and underperformed by 1.64. Both goaltenders played exceptionally: S. Bobrovsky saved 1.64 goals above expected; D. Vladar saved 1.51. Bobrovsky's marginal advantage carried Florida to victory.

The real determinant was Florida's control: 34 shot attempts to Philadelphia's 20. The underlying expected-goals advantage (3.51 to 2.64) was substantial. Philadelphia created more dangerous opportunities, but Florida created so many more total opportunities that volume overwhelmed precision. B. Marchand's goal decided it. A. Lundell added another. T. Foerster's assist wasn't nearly enough.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 9
PHI
1
FLA
2

Panthers hold off the Flyers

Chances 2.6 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.64
FLA
3.51
43% of the chances57%

The board read PHI 1, FLA 2. The chances read PHI 2.6, FLA 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
−1.5
goals above expected
FLA3.51 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI2.64 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers left 1.6 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 05:29FLAA. LundellPP0–1
  2. P2 17:48PHIN. Cates1–1
  3. P3 02:19FLAB. Marchand1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
32 shots
1
Final
83 shots
FLA
51 shots
2
PHI attackFLA attack
PHI FLA Goal
32
shots · 1 in
51
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIFLA
1 / 6
1.41 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.01 xG
0 / 6
0.77 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.49 xG
0 / 26
0.45 xG
Low
1 / 45
1.01 xG

High-danger looks: PHI 1 of 6, FLA 0 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Bobrovsky
+1.6
FLA · 19/20
A
D. Vladar
+1.5
PHI · 32/34
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers hold off the Flyers

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 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 6–13no goals
    2ndshots 9–12
    1. 05:29FLAA. Lundellpower play(E. Rodrigues, J. Petry)0–1
    2. 17:48PHIN. Cates(T. Foerster)1–1
    3rdshots 5–9
    1. 02:19FLAB. Marchand(L. Kunin, A. Greer)1–2

    score reads PHI–FLA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.51
    FLA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.005
    FLA puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    62.4%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.64Expected goals3.51
    FLA 57% of the chance quality
    20Shots on goal34
    6High-danger chances5
    38All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: PHI 39% · FLA 61%
    Faceoffs · FLA won38%off52%neu30%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PHI1 / 6 · 1.41 xG
    FLA0 / 5 · 1.01 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PHI0 / 6 · 0.77 xG
    FLA1 / 13 · 1.49 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PHI0 / 26 · 0.45 xG
    FLA1 / 45 · 1.01 xG

    FLA went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.01 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PHI
    1 G · 2.64 xG · -1.6
    FLA
    2 G · 3.51 xG · -1.5
    01234

    PHI finished -1.6 against expected, FLA -1.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PHI
    WRIST1/17
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED0/2
    BAT0/2
    TIP IN0/0
    OTHER0/6
    FLA
    WRIST2/28
    SNAP0/13
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/0
    TIP IN0/2
    OTHER0/12
    PHI
    FLA
    Off the rush
    0 G on 16
    1.66 xG
    1 G on 32
    2.54 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 3
    0.55 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.52 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-17, FLA 2-for-28.

    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
    D. Vladar
    PHI · 32/34 · .941
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.0+1.0
    Medium1/131.5+0.5
    Low1/451.0+0.0

    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

    S. Bobrovsky
    FLA · 19/20 · .950
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.4+0.4
    Medium0/60.8+0.8
    Low0/260.5+0.5

    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

    83 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PHI
    32 shots
    1
    Final
    83 shots
    FLA
    51 shots
    2
    PHI attackFLA attack
    PHI FLA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, FLA 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
    B. Marchand
    #63 · L · —
    1 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 19:34 on ice
    A. Lundell
    #15 · C · —
    1 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 17:26 on ice
    T. Foerster
    #71 · R · —
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:15 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Oct 9
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:18 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

    The model sees this as a true toss-up: Panthers at 51% to win, with the projected score hovering around 3.1–3.2 goals per side. Philadelphia carries a marginal advantage in expected goals—52.1% xG% compared to Florida's 50.6%—but the Panthers control play at 51.9% Corsi. Expect Florida to spend more time in Philadelphia's zone. Both clubs sport nearly neutral shooting luck (Philadelphia's PDO sits at 1.008, Florida's at 0.989), meaning tonight depends on skill and execution rather than bounces.

    The marquee forward battle centers on Owen Tippett against Florida's defense. Tippett has 19 goals on just 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes, running a 12.1% shooting rate that's unsustainable by definition. He's outpacing his quality, and regression looms. Sam Bennett is the inverse problem for Philly's defense: he's generating 0.97 xG/60 with genuine conversion, having scored 18 goals on 6 high-danger attempts.

    Christian Dvorak represents Philadelphia's defensive vulnerability. He's been on ice for 2.68 expected goals against per 60 and has fronted 54 high-danger shot attempts against this season, making him the obvious target for Florida's forecheck. On the flip side, Brad Marchand (17 goals, 0.93 xG/60, 19.5% shooting) offers secondary scoring punch that Philly can't entirely ignore.

    This game operates in the margins. Philly's xG edge is marginal, Florida's territorial edge is modest, and the shooting percentages won't hold for anyone. The 51% lean toward the Panthers reflects the model's read of the underlying probabilities, not a confident call. Watch how each team adjusts to the defensive weak links in the opening frame—whoever identifies and exploits Dvorak or Marchand first shapes the outcome.

    Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    FLA 51%
    51%
    FLA
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    PHI50FLA

    FLA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 3.1–3.2 FLA; 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
    PHI← edge
    edge →FLA
    52.1%50.6%
    47.6%51.9%
    3.053.22
    2.803.14
    2.933.00
    2.913.34
    1.0080.989

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.989) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    PHI
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    FLA
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.008
    PHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.989
    FLA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    TACTICALFLA

    Shutdown Assignment: Panthers

    Key matchup: Neutralize Owen Tippett (19G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Owen Tippett (19G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    TACTICALPHI

    Shutdown Assignment: Flyers

    Key matchup: Neutralize Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

    WARNINGPHI

    Exploitable minutes: Christian Dvorak

    Christian Dvorak is on ice for 2.68 xGA/60 and 54 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Christian Dvorak's shifts with the top line.

    WARNINGFLA

    Exploitable minutes: Brad Marchand

    Brad Marchand is on ice for 3.24 xGA/60 and 31 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Brad Marchand's shifts with the top line.

    Where the edges live
    • The Panthers drive Corsi at 51.9% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Panthers drive Corsi at 51.9% — expect territorial tilt.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    PHI
    Owen Tippett19G 18A
    0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.1% sh
    Christian Dvorak12G 21A
    0.81 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.2% sh
    FLA
    Sam Bennett18G 19A
    0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
    Brad Marchand17G 9A
    0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page