Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
← Mon, Oct 13 · the slate
Breakdown · FLA at PHI

Flyers run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Oct 13
FLAFlorida Panthers2PHIPhiladelphia Flyers5
The verdict · earned

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

FLA 2 · PHI 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:26 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 generated more high-danger chances than Philadelphia (9 to 8), yet lost 2–5. The story wasn't luck—it was efficiency. The Flyers controlled 65% of 5v5 expected goals (6.00–3.22) while taking just 46% of shot attempts (22–26), a quality gap reflected in their 0.100 xG per attempt versus Florida's 0.068.

The advantage materialized in conversions. Philadelphia scored four goals on 28 rush chances. Christian Dvorak's tip-in at 18:33 of the third period exemplified the pattern: making the dangerous look automatic.

D. Tarasov (FLA) delivered an exceptional performance, saving 3.0 goals above expected, yet his team still surrendered the decisive play. D. Vladar (PHI) finished at 0.923 save percentage with a +1.22 advantage, converting an edge built on pace and shot selection.

This was methodical dominance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 13
FLA
2
PHI
5

Flyers run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.2 – 6.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
3.22
PHI
6.00
35% of the chances65%

The board read FLA 2, PHI 5. The chances read FLA 3.2, PHI 6.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
−1.0
goals above expected
PHI6.00 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA3.22 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 08:54PHIT. Foerster0–1
  2. P2 15:47PHIS. Couturier0–2
  3. P2 19:22FLAS. ReinhartSH1–2
  4. P3 10:15FLAS. BennettPP2–2
  5. P3 15:50PHIS. Couturier2–3
  6. P3 17:43PHIB. BrinkEN2–4
  7. P3 18:33PHIC. DvorakEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
33 shots
2
Final
74 shots
PHI
41 shots
5
FLA attackPHI attack
FLA PHI Goal
33
shots · 2 in
41
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLAPHI
1 / 9
2.08 xG
High danger
2 / 8
3.48 xG
0 / 7
0.69 xG
Medium
3 / 20
2.04 xG
1 / 31
0.44 xG
Low
0 / 32
0.48 xG

The Flyers buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Tarasov
+3.0
FLA · 17/20
B+
D. Vladar
+1.2
PHI · 24/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 5–8
  1. 08:54PHIT. Foerster(S. Couturier)0–1
2ndshots 14–10
  1. 15:47PHIS. Couturier(T. Konecny, T. Sanheim)0–2
  2. 19:22FLAS. Reinhartshorthanded(A. Lundell)1–2
3rdshots 7–4
  1. 10:15FLAS. Bennettpower play(S. Reinhart, B. Marchand)2–2
  2. 15:50PHIS. Couturier(T. Zegras, J. Drysdale)2–3
  3. 17:43PHIB. Brinkempty net(N. Cates, N. Seeler)2–4
  4. 18:33PHIC. Dvorakempty net(T. Sanheim, S. Couturier)2–5

score reads FLA–PHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.00
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.041
PHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
56.1%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.22Expected goals6.00
PHI 65% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal22
9High-danger chances8
47All attempts (Corsi)60
Adjusted for score: FLA 47% · PHI 53%
Faceoffs · PHI won50%off38%neu57%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA1 / 9 · 2.08 xG
PHI2 / 8 · 3.48 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA0 / 7 · 0.69 xG
PHI3 / 20 · 2.04 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA1 / 31 · 0.44 xG
PHI0 / 32 · 0.48 xG

PHI went 2-for-8 from high danger on 3.48 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
2 G · 3.22 xG · -1.2
PHI
5 G · 6.00 xG · -1.0
01234567

FLA finished -1.2 against expected, PHI -1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
WRIST1/20
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/4
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/14
PHI
WRIST3/17
SNAP1/8
SLAP0/8
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/1
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/19
FLA
PHI
Off the rush
1 G on 23
2.31 xG
4 G on 28
3.61 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.49 xG
1 G on 2
0.89 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 1-for-20, PHI 3-for-17. PHI scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

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. Tarasov
FLA · 17/20 · .850
+3.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/83.5+1.5
Medium3/202.0-1.0
Low0/320.5+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

D. Vladar
PHI · 24/26 · .923
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/92.1+1.1
Medium0/70.7+0.7
Low1/310.4-0.6

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

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
33 shots
2
Final
74 shots
PHI
41 shots
5
FLA attackPHI attack
FLA PHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, PHI 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
S. Couturier
#14 · C · PHI
2 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 16:41 on ice · +4
T. Sanheim
#6 · D · PHI
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 24:56 on ice · +4
S. Reinhart
#13 · C · FLA
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:27 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Oct 13
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:17 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 projects a 3.0–3.2 goal game with the Flyers at 54% win probability—as close to a coin flip as you'll find. Both clubs possess the depth to execute when it counts.

Philadelphia's first assignment is clear: contain Sam Bennett. The Panthers' 18-goal forward operates at 0.97 xG/60 with six high-danger finishes—the engine of Florida's offence. Philadelphia's counterpart challenge is Owen Tippett, who has 19 goals at 0.88 xG/60 but only two high-danger conversions, a marginally simpler assignment.

The Flyers harbour a vulnerability: Brad Marchand is on ice for 3.24 xGA/60 and has absorbed 31 high-danger shots against this season. Florida should hunt his shifts.

Tactical shape

Across 5-on-5 play, Philadelphia edges Florida 52.1% to 50.6% in expected goals—nearly even. Yet the Panthers drive territorial possession at 51.9% Corsi, tilting play in their favour despite equal shot quality. The Flyers have run slightly lucky at 1.008 PDO; the Panthers sit at 0.989, suggesting finishes may regress upward for Philadelphia.

The scorers

FLA: Sam Bennett (0.97 xG/60, 18G–19A, 13.1% shooting, 6 HD goals); Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 17G–9A, 19.5% shooting, 3 HD goals)

PHI: Owen Tippett (0.88 xG/60, 19G–18A, 12.1% shooting, 2 HD goals); Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12G–21A, 11.2% shooting, 3 HD goals)

At 54%, the Flyers own the edge—but only barely.

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

PHI 54%
54%
PHI
Model favorite
46%
54%
FLA50PHI

PHI by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score FLA 3.0–3.2 PHI; 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
FLA← edge
edge →PHI
50.6%52.1%
51.9%47.6%
3.223.05
3.142.80
3.002.93
3.342.91
0.9891.008

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

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

Keys to the game

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)

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)

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.

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.

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
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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page