Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater

Breakdown · PIT at PHI

Flyers run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTTue, Oct 28

PITPittsburgh Penguins2 PHIPhiladelphia Flyers3

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 2 · PHI 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:31 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

The Flyers edged the Penguins 3-2 in a shootout. The underlying metrics favored Philadelphia across the board—until A. Silovs stopped 2.52 goals above expected on 0.941 SV%, including 90% of 10 high-danger shots. That's how a team stays competitive against superior underlying metrics.

The Flyers controlled 63% of 5v5 expected goals (4.52–2.68), held 57% of shot attempts (34–26), and generated dangerous looks at a far higher rate (10–3 high-danger chances). They generated superior shot quality at 0.071 expected goals per shot to Pittsburgh's 0.051. They crashed the net effectively, creating 6 rebound opportunities and converting 1; Pittsburgh created 5 and converted none.

Pittsburgh scored 2 goals on 22 rush attempts. The Flyers' S. Ersson was solid (0.923 SV%, +0.68 vs expected) but fell short. Philadelphia underperformed its xG by 1.52 goals despite commanding possession and quality, which meant A. Silovs prevented the rout that the numbers predicted.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Oct 28

PIT

PHI

Flyers run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.7 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

PIT

2.68

PHI

4.52

37% of the chances63%

The board read PIT 2, PHI 3. The chances read PIT 2.7, PHI 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

PHI

−1.5

goals above expected

PHI4.52 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

PIT2.68 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

P1 10:19PITJ. Brazeau1–0
P1 17:25PHIB. BrinkPP1–1
P2 02:46PHIT. Konecny1–2
P3 11:57PITS. Crosby2–2
SO 00:00PHIM. MichkovPP2–2
SO 00:00PITE. MalkinPP2–2
SO 00:00PHIB. BrinkPP2–2

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

PIT

40 shots

Final

93 shots

PHI

53 shots

PIT PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PITPHI

0 / 3

0.62 xG

High danger

1 / 10

2.29 xG

1 / 12

1.47 xG

Medium

0 / 16

1.64 xG

1 / 38

0.59 xG

Low

1 / 38

0.60 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A+

A. Silovs

+2.5

PIT · 32/34

S. Ersson

+0.7

PHI · 24/26

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Flyers run the Penguins 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 8–10

10:19PITJ. Brazeau(A. Mantha, M. Dumba)1–0
17:25PHIB. Brinkpower play(N. Cates, T. Zegras)1–1

2ndshots 5–14

02:46PHIT. Konecny(S. Couturier, B. Brink)1–2

3rdshots 9–8

11:57PITS. Crosby(F. Hallander, B. Rust)2–2

OTshots 4–2no goals

00:00PHIM. Michkovpower play2–2
00:00PITE. Malkinpower play2–2
00:00PHIB. Brinkpower play2–2

score reads PIT–PHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.52

PHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.5

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.994

PHI puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

54.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.68Expected goals4.52

PHI 63% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal34

3High-danger chances10

53All attempts (Corsi)64

Adjusted for score: PIT 47% · PHI 53%

Faceoffs · PHI won57%off63%neu39%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PIT0 / 3 · 0.62 xG

PHI1 / 10 · 2.29 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PIT1 / 12 · 1.47 xG

PHI0 / 16 · 1.64 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PIT1 / 38 · 0.59 xG

PHI1 / 38 · 0.60 xG

PHI went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.64 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PIT

2 G · 2.68 xG · -0.7

PHI

3 G · 4.52 xG · -1.5

012345

PIT finished -0.7 against expected, PHI -1.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PIT

WRIST1/23

SNAP0/3

BACKHAND1/3

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/2

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/16

PHI

WRIST1/25

SNAP1/9

BACKHAND0/8

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/2

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/14

PIT

PHI

Off the rush

2 G on 22

1.76 xG

1 G on 30

3.09 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5

0.77 xG

1 G on 6

1.12 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 1-for-23, PHI 1-for-25. PIT scored 2 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

A. Silovs

PIT · 32/34 · .941

+2.5

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/102.3+1.3

Medium0/161.6+1.6

Low1/380.6-0.4

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

S. Ersson

PHI · 24/26 · .923

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.6+0.6

Medium1/121.5+0.5

Low1/380.6-0.4

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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PIT

40 shots

Final

93 shots

PHI

53 shots

PIT PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT 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

B. Brink

#10 · R · PHI

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:51 on ice · +1

B. Rust

#17 · R · PIT

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:33 on ice · +1

S. Crosby

#87 · C · PIT

1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 23:15 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 28

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:24 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 sees this as purely even money: 52% Flyers win probability, projected final of 2.4–2.5 goals per side. These teams have traded evenly in the areas that matter.

Both rank identically on expected goals percentage (51.0% xG%), suggesting comparable shot quality generation despite Pittsburgh's edge in possession metrics (Corsi% 50.0% to Philadelphia's 48.0%). The five-on-five underlying numbers land within a fraction of each other—puck luck, measured by PDO, sits at 1.012 for Pittsburgh and 1.008 for Philadelphia, essentially fungible.

Philadelphia's main advantage is tactical: three days of rest to Pittsburgh's one. That margin matters for a team already carrying fatigue. T. Jarry is on a back-to-back; either a backup takes the net or a tired starter does.

On the scoreboard, expect Rickard Rakell to drive Pittsburgh's chances. He carries 1.01 xG per 60 at even strength, and his 13 goals on 12.1% shooting suggests his line is converting at a clip that can't sustain. Philadelphia counters with Owen Tippett (0.88 xG/60, 19 goals at 12.1% shooting) and Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 11.2% shooting)—both dangerous finishers operating in high-volume offensive roles.

The offensive ceiling looks low for both sides. Pittsburgh has generated 0% of its scoring from high-danger situations and 0% from rebounds—an unsustainable dependency on clean chances. Philadelphia mirrors those numbers, meaning neither team can exploit scrambles or create secondary options at goal.

Defensively, Pittsburgh's weak link is Caleb Jones. Christian Dvorak holds that role for Philadelphia.

This truly is a coin flip: equivalent depth of generating quality chances, matched inefficiency on the bump, separated only by rest and the fragility of streaking shooters who are bound to regress.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 52%

52%

PHI

Model favorite

48%

52%

PIT50PHI

PHI by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 2.4–2.5 PHI; 18% 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

PIT← edge

edge →PHI

51.0%51.0%

50.0%48.0%

2.662.26

2.552.20

2.451.96

2.121.82

1.0121.008

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.008) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

PIT

7-2-1

+11 GD · 1d rest

PHI

5-4-1

+2 GD · 3d rest

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

T. Jarry is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Flyers have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PIT

Expected in goal

T. Jarry

back-to-back.893 last start

Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PHI

Expected in goal

S. Ersson

3 days rest.885 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

PIT

Filip Hallander0G 3A

1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh

Rickard Rakell13G 13A

1.01 xG/60 · 3 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