Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
← Thu, Oct 16 · the slate
Breakdown · WPG at PHI

Jets pull away from the Flyers

FinalThu, Oct 16
WPGWinnipeg Jets5PHIPhiladelphia Flyers2
The verdict · stolen

The Jets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.78–2.64 and won anyway.

WPG 5 · PHI 2
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:50 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

Philadelphia owned 60% of expected goals at 5v5 (2.64–1.78) and dominated the rush, yet lost 5–2 to Winnipeg's clinical finishing. This was the game's central paradox: the Flyers deserved better.

C. Hellebuyck made 15 of 17 saves and stopped all six high-danger chances, a performance that transforms winnable games into routs. S. Ersson faced 14 shots, saved 10, and gave up 2.2 goals more than his workload justified—a 0.714 save percentage that represents catastrophic execution under pressure.

Philadelphia's chances were higher quality. The Flyers went scoreless on six high-danger attempts while Winnipeg converted 2 of 4 in the same zone. Two of Philadelphia's goals came from low-danger positions; the execution gap widened when the stakes rose. On the rush, the Flyers scored twice from 20 chances while Winnipeg scored three times from 15—demonstrating the efficiency gap that decided the game.

Tanner Pearson's wrist shot from the wing (18:47, third) marked the turning point. After that, Winnipeg's finishing looked elite: they overperformed their 1.78 xG by 3.22 goals, either clinical execution or supernatural puck luck.

K. Connor set up two goals in 18:47. M. Scheifele scored both in 18:44. T. Sanheim added an assist in 24:35.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 16
WPG
5
PHI
2

Jets pull away from the Flyers

Chances 1.8 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
1.78
PHI
2.64
40% of the chances60%

The board read WPG 5, PHI 2. The chances read WPG 1.8, PHI 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
+3.2
goals above expected
WPG1.78 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI2.64 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets scored 3.2 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:45WPGV. Namestnikov1–0
  2. P2 07:01WPGM. Scheifele2–0
  3. P2 16:22PHIO. Tippett2–1
  4. P2 17:43WPGM. Barron3–1
  5. P3 09:40WPGM. ScheifelePP4–1
  6. P3 17:39PHIM. MichkovPP4–2
  7. P3 18:47WPGT. PearsonEN5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
22 shots
5
Final
49 shots
PHI
27 shots
2
WPG attackPHI attack
WPG PHI Goal
22
shots · 5 in
27
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGPHI
2 / 4
0.93 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.50 xG
2 / 4
0.53 xG
Medium
0 / 5
0.61 xG
1 / 30
0.32 xG
Low
2 / 25
0.53 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
C. Hellebuyck
+0.6
WPG · 15/17
F
S. Ersson
−2.2
PHI · 10/14
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Jets pull away from 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 5–3
  1. 05:45WPGV. Namestnikov(N. Niederreiter, G. Nyquist)1–0
2ndshots 5–12
  1. 07:01WPGM. Scheifele(G. Vilardi)2–0
  2. 16:22PHIO. Tippett(T. Zegras, T. Sanheim)2–1
  3. 17:43WPGM. Barron(K. Connor)3–1
3rdshots 5–2
  1. 09:40WPGM. Scheifelepower play(K. Connor, A. Iafallo)4–1
  2. 17:39PHIM. Michkovpower play(N. Juulsen, S. Couturier)4–2
  3. 18:47WPGT. Pearsonempty net5–2

score reads WPG–PHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
1.78
WPG chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.076
WPG puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
51.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.78Expected goals2.64
PHI 60% of the chance quality
15Shots on goal17
4High-danger chances6
38All attempts (Corsi)36
Adjusted for score: WPG 46% · PHI 54%
Faceoffs · PHI won60%off39%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG2 / 4 · 0.93 xG
PHI0 / 6 · 1.50 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG2 / 4 · 0.53 xG
PHI0 / 5 · 0.61 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG1 / 30 · 0.32 xG
PHI2 / 25 · 0.53 xG

PHI went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.50 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
5 G · 1.78 xG · +3.2
PHI
2 G · 2.64 xG · -0.6
0123456

WPG finished +3.2 against expected, PHI -0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
WRIST4/14
SNAP0/2
SLAP1/2
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/2
OTHER0/16
PHI
WRIST0/17
SNAP2/7
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/1
TIP IN0/0
OTHER0/9
WPG
PHI
Off the rush
3 G on 15
1.25 xG
2 G on 20
1.97 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 1
0.19 xG
0 G on 2
0.40 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 4-for-14, PHI 0-for-17. WPG scored 3 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
C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 15/17 · .882
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.5+1.5
Medium0/50.6+0.6
Low2/250.5-1.5

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

S. Ersson
PHI · 10/14 · .714
-2.2
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/40.9-1.1
Medium2/40.5-1.5
Low1/300.3-0.7

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

49 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WPG
22 shots
5
Final
49 shots
PHI
27 shots
2
WPG attackPHI attack
WPG PHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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
K. Connor
#81 · L · —
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 18:47 on ice · +2
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · —
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 18:44 on ice · +1
T. Sanheim
#6 · D · —
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 24:35 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 3:33 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 algorithm backs Philadelphia. The model projects a WPG 2.9–3.2 PHI scoreline with the Flyers at 55% win probability, built on a decisive edge in shot quality: Philadelphia's 52.1% 5v5 expected goals share against Winnipeg's 48.9% represents the kind of underlying separation that compounds over time.

The Flyers' advantage sits in sheer generation. Their 47.6% Corsi rate is unremarkable, yet they've dominated the shot metric that matters most—expected goals—on volume and quality alike. Winnipeg's 49.0% Corsi tracks with their 48.9% xG share, suggesting they're holding their own in quantity but surrendering position to cleaner looks against them.

Philadelphia's shutdown assignment is clear: Colin Miller bleeds expected goals against at 3.07 xGA/60, having faced 15 high-danger shots this season. That makes him the exploitable weak link Winnipeg will hunt. Flyers will need to account for that liability by clamping down on Nino Niederreiter, who carries a 0.87 xG/60 rate with 6 goals, 3 of them high-danger—the kind of conversion efficiency the model rewards with a higher projection.

Winnipeg's counter-move is to neutralize Owen Tippett, who sits at 0.88 xG/60 with 19 goals and 2 high-danger markers. His shooting efficiency at 12.1% is elevated but not unsustainable; Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25 goals, 13.0% shooting) remains the primary threat, especially if Winnipeg can sustain possession and chip away at Philadelphia's xG advantage.

On the Flyers' side, Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 11.2% shooting, 3 HD goals) provides secondary punch. The underlying numbers are emphatic: Philadelphia owns the play. The Flyers' 3.2-percentage-point edge in xG% is substantial and suggests the model's 55% lean is earned. Winnipeg's PDO sits at 0.998—normal regress toward mean—while Philadelphia's 1.008 edge indicates their actual results have tracked their underlying quality. Expect the books to respect this gap.

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 55%
55%
PHI
Model favorite
45%
55%
WPG50PHI

PHI by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.9–3.2 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
WPG← edge
edge →PHI
48.9%52.1%
49.0%47.6%
2.973.05
3.102.80
2.792.93
3.122.91
0.9981.008

PHI holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 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
WPG
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
PHI
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.998
WPG 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 Nino Niederreiter (6G, 0.87 xG/60, 3 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Nino Niederreiter (6G, 0.87 xG/60, 3 HD goals)

TACTICALWPG

Shutdown Assignment: Jets

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)

WARNINGWPG

Exploitable minutes: Colin Miller

Colin Miller is on ice for 3.07 xGA/60 and 15 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Colin Miller'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 Flyers own the underlying play — 52.1% 5v5 xG vs 48.9%.
Things to watch
  • The Flyers own the underlying play — 52.1% 5v5 xG vs 48.9%.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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