Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
← Mon, Oct 20 · the slate
Breakdown · SEA at PHI

Flyers pull away from the Kraken

FinalMon, Oct 20
SEASeattle Kraken2PHIPhiladelphia Flyers5
The verdict · coin flip

The Flyers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

SEA 2 · PHI 5
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:14 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 won 5–2, but the expected-goals metric — 2.89 to 2.85 — said it was a coin flip.

The Flyers' edge was narrow in volume: 54% shot attempts (27–23 on goal). Their margin in chance quality was narrower still. High-danger chances tied at five apiece. Yet PHI won by three goals. That gap came from execution — both elite and catastrophic.

D. Vladar (PHI) was perfect where it mattered: 100% save rate on five high-danger shots. He finished 21/23 overall (+0.85 vs expected). J. Daccord (SEA) stopped none of his five HD chances and finished 16/21 (-2.75 vs expected). The gap between them accounts for most of the scoreboard surplus.

P. Grubauer (SEA) did not help his team's cause. He stopped all six shots he faced, netting +0.64 vs expected. On another night, that dominance matters. He barely played.

The Flyers' finishing was ruthless. They converted 2 of 5 high-danger chances (40%) and scored five goals from 23 rush attempts. The Kraken managed none of their five HD chances and two from 26 rush tries. PHI also dominated special teams: 2 power-play goals on 5 shots (0.69 xG).

C. York (PHI) finished with 3 assists over 21:49. S. Couturier (PHI) added 2 assists in 18:56. O. Tippett (PHI) scored 2 goals in 16:41, including a wrist shot from a sharp angle in the second period.

PHI overperformed their xG by 2.11 goals — a sign of elite finishing or favorable bounces. SEA underperformed by 0.85.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 20
SEA
2
PHI
5

Flyers pull away from the Kraken

Chances 2.9 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Flyers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
SEA
2.85
PHI
2.89
50% of the chances50%

The board read SEA 2, PHI 5. The chances read SEA 2.9, PHI 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
+2.1
goals above expected
PHI2.89 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
SEA2.85 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers scored 2.1 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 07:16SEAJ. Eberle1–0
  2. P1 09:56PHIO. Tippett1–1
  3. P1 13:19PHIT. FoersterPP1–2
  4. P2 04:59PHIT. Konecny1–3
  5. P2 05:32PHIN. CatesPP1–4
  6. P2 08:33SEAJ. NymanPP2–4
  7. P2 15:40PHIO. Tippett2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SEA
36 shots
2
Final
72 shots
PHI
36 shots
5
SEA attackPHI attack
SEA PHI Goal
36
shots · 2 in
36
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SEAPHI
0 / 5
1.13 xG
High danger
2 / 5
1.24 xG
2 / 15
1.35 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.25 xG
0 / 27
0.36 xG
Low
1 / 30
0.41 xG

The Kraken went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
P. Grubauer
+2.9
SEA · 6/6
B+
D. Vladar
+0.8
PHI · 21/23
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers pull away from the Kraken

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 8–10
  1. 07:16SEAJ. Eberle(C. Fleury, B. Catton)1–0
  2. 09:56PHIO. Tippett(N. Seeler, S. Couturier)1–1
  3. 13:19PHIT. Foersterpower play(B. Brink, C. York)1–2
2ndshots 9–11
  1. 04:59PHIT. Konecny(E. Zamula, M. Michkov)1–3
  2. 05:32PHIN. Catespower play(C. York, T. Zegras)1–4
  3. 08:33SEAJ. Nymanpower play(M. Beniers, C. Stephenson)2–4
  4. 15:40PHIO. Tippett(S. Couturier, C. York)2–5
3rdshots 6–6no goals

    score reads SEA–PHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.89
    PHI chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.064
    PHI puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    50.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.85Expected goals2.89
    PHI 50% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal27
    5High-danger chances5
    47All attempts (Corsi)47
    Adjusted for score: SEA 55% · PHI 45%
    Faceoffs · PHI won65%off52%neu56%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    SEA0 / 5 · 1.13 xG
    PHI2 / 5 · 1.24 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    SEA2 / 15 · 1.35 xG
    PHI2 / 12 · 1.25 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    SEA0 / 27 · 0.36 xG
    PHI1 / 30 · 0.41 xG

    SEA went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.13 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    SEA
    2 G · 2.85 xG · -0.8
    PHI
    5 G · 2.89 xG · +2.1
    0123456

    SEA finished -0.8 against expected, PHI +2.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    SEA
    WRIST1/21
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED1/1
    OTHER0/11
    PHI
    WRIST3/19
    SNAP1/8
    SLAP0/5
    TIP IN1/2
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/11
    SEA
    PHI
    Off the rush
    2 G on 26
    2.09 xG
    5 G on 23
    2.45 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.07 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.09 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 1-for-21, PHI 3-for-19. PHI scored 5 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
    P. Grubauer
    SEA · 6/6 · 1.000
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/51.2-0.8
    Medium2/121.3-0.8
    Low1/300.4-0.6

    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

    J. Daccord
    SEA · 16/21 · .762
    -2.1
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/51.2-0.8
    Medium2/121.3-0.8
    Low1/300.4-0.6

    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

    D. Vladar
    PHI · 21/23 · .913
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.1+1.1
    Medium2/151.4-0.7
    Low0/270.4+0.4

    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

    72 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    SEA
    36 shots
    2
    Final
    72 shots
    PHI
    36 shots
    5
    SEA attackPHI attack
    SEA PHI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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
    C. York
    #8 · D · PHI
    0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 21:49 on ice
    S. Couturier
    #14 · C · PHI
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:56 on ice · +2
    O. Tippett
    #74 · R · PHI
    2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 16:41 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Oct 20
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:11 PMEdited 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 SEA 2.2–2.5 PHI game with PHI at 56% win probability. Philadelphia dominates the underlying shot metrics: 51.0% 5v5 xG to 46.0%, 48.0% Corsi to 45.0%. But form cuts differently. Seattle has punched above its depth in recent play, going 5-2-3 over their last 10. Philadelphia sits -5 on goal differential in the same span, underwater despite controlling the shot-volume game.

    The structural advantage stays with Philadelphia. The underlying efficiency edge—that 5-point xG margin—tracks through Dvorak and Tippett's play. Christian Dvorak runs a 12G 21A line with a sharp 11.2% shooting percentage at 0.81 xG/60. Owen Tippett (0.88 xG/60, 19G 18A) stands as a dominant force when in the lineup, though the Flyers will face Seattle without him Saturday—undisclosed injury, day-to-day.

    Seattle counters with Jacob Melanson and Ben Meyers. Melanson operates at 0.88 xG/60 (2G 3A) on a 6.1% shooting rate. Meyers contributes 7G 8A at 0.82 xG/60 but runs a 12.1% shooting percentage, suggesting outperformance relative to his volume.

    Both teams carry weak defensive anchors—Chandler Stephenson for Seattle, Dvorak for Philadelphia—though Dvorak's two-way impact softens that liability.

    Players to Watch

    Seattle: Jacob Melanson (0.88 xG/60, 2G 3A), Ben Meyers (0.82 xG/60, 7G 8A)

    Philadelphia: Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12G 21A), Owen Tippett (0.88 xG/60, 19G 18A) — day-to-day

    Three Things to Watch

    • Philadelphia's xG edge projects as its largest structural advantage.
    • Seattle's recent form suggests the underlying efficiency gap may not fully translate.
    • Tippett's status becomes decisive for the Flyers' expected outcome.
    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PHI 56%
    56%
    PHI
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    SEA50PHI

    PHI by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.2–2.5 PHI; 19% 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
    SEA← edge
    edge →PHI
    46.0%51.0%
    45.0%48.0%
    2.132.26
    2.512.20
    1.871.96
    1.951.82
    1.0111.008

    PHI holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 1.008) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    SEA
    5-2-3
    +1 GD · 2d rest
    PHI
    4-5-1
    -5 GD · 2d rest
    1.011
    SEA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.008
    PHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • PHI owns the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    Things to watch
    • PHI owns the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    • SEA is the hotter team by points pace (5-2-3 in their last 10).
    • PHI is underwater at -5 goal differential over the last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    SEA
    Expected in goal
    J. Daccord
    2 days rest.900 last start
    Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    PHI
    Expected in goal
    D. Vladar
    2 days rest.938 last start
    Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    SEA
    Jacob Melanson2G 3A
    0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.1% sh
    Ben Meyers7G 8A
    0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 12.1% 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