Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
Breakdown · PHI at MTL

Flyers run the Canadiens off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

PHI 5 · MTL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:55 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 edged Montreal 5-4 in a shootout, backed by superior underlying play: the Flyers controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (5.06–3.31), translating structural advantages into victory.

The Flyers' dominance was apparent across metrics. Philadelphia outshot Montreal 42–20 at even strength, won high-danger chances 8–4, and controlled the offensive pace throughout. Montreal generated some chances—3 goals on 27 rush opportunities and 4 rebound chances with 1 conversion—but operated from a deficit in volume.

Montembeault's elite performance obscured how thorough the Flyers' advantage was. The Canadiens goaltender posted a 0.905 SV% and stopped 1.1 goals above expected, while Vladar underperformed his expected save percentage by 0.69 goals. This split compressed a margin that the underlying numbers suggested should have been wider.

The power-play disparity reflected the game's shape. Montreal converted 2 goals on just 4 power-play shots, from only 0.34 expected goals—clinical execution on limited danger. Philadelphia converted at a lower rate (2 PPG on 19 shots from 1.99 xG), but from substantially more dangerous positions. On the rush, both teams scored 3 goals, but Philadelphia reached that from 37 chances versus Montreal's 27.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Nov 4
PHI
5
MTL
4

Flyers run the Canadiens off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.1 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
5.06
MTL
3.31
61% of the chances40%

The board read PHI 5, MTL 4. The chances read PHI 5.1, MTL 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
−0.1
goals above expected
PHI5.06 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL3.31 expected · 4 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 01:56PHIB. Brink1–0
  2. P1 07:07PHIC. YorkPP2–0
  3. P1 07:50PHIB. BrinkPP3–0
  4. P2 03:12MTLK. Dach3–1
  5. P2 04:15MTLN. SuzukiPP3–2
  6. P2 13:28MTLK. Dach3–3
  7. P2 15:57MTLI. DemidovPP3–4
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
57 shots
5
Final
95 shots
MTL
38 shots
4
PHI attackMTL attack
PHI MTL Goal
57
shots · 5 in
38
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIMTL
1 / 8
1.84 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.01 xG
1 / 22
2.47 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.75 xG
2 / 42
0.74 xG
Low
1 / 29
0.54 xG

High-danger looks: PHI 1 of 8, MTL 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
S. Montembeault
+1.1
MTL · 38/42
D
D. Vladar
−0.7
PHI · 16/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers run the Canadiens 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 12–2
  1. 01:56PHIB. Brink(T. Sanheim, C. York)1–0
  2. 07:07PHIC. Yorkpower play(T. Zegras, T. Konecny)2–0
  3. 07:50PHIB. Brinkpower play(N. Cates, T. Zegras)3–0
2ndshots 17–9
  1. 03:12MTLK. Dach(N. Dobson, B. Gallagher)3–1
  2. 04:15MTLN. Suzukipower play(I. Demidov, C. Caufield)3–2
  3. 13:28MTLK. Dach(L. Hutson, J. Struble)3–3
  4. 15:57MTLI. Demidovpower play(J. Slafkovský, L. Hutson)3–4
3rdshots 11–7
  1. 10:51PHIN. Grebenkin(T. Konecny, J. Drysdale)4–4
OTshots 2–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00PHIT. Zegraspower play4–4

    score reads PHI–MTL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.06
    PHI chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.969
    PHI puck luck
    Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
    61.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.06Expected goals3.31
    PHI 61% of the chance quality
    42Shots on goal20
    8High-danger chances4
    72All attempts (Corsi)46
    Adjusted for score: PHI 59% · MTL 41%
    Faceoffs · MTL won33%off83%neu65%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PHI1 / 8 · 1.84 xG
    MTL1 / 4 · 1.01 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PHI1 / 22 · 2.47 xG
    MTL2 / 13 · 1.75 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PHI2 / 42 · 0.74 xG
    MTL1 / 29 · 0.54 xG

    PHI went 1-for-22 from medium danger on 2.47 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PHI
    5 G · 5.06 xG · -0.1
    MTL
    4 G · 3.31 xG · +0.7
    0123456

    PHI finished -0.1 against expected, MTL +0.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PHI
    SNAP1/35
    TIP IN1/6
    SLAP1/5
    BACKHAND0/4
    WRIST1/2
    BAT0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BETWEEN LEGS0/1
    OTHER0/17
    MTL
    SNAP4/27
    TIP IN0/3
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/3
    WRIST0/0
    BAT0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BETWEEN LEGS0/0
    OTHER0/11
    PHI
    MTL
    Off the rush
    3 G on 37
    3.93 xG
    3 G on 27
    2.36 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 5
    0.76 xG
    1 G on 4
    0.90 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-35, MTL 4-for-27. PHI 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
    D. Vladar
    PHI · 16/20 · .800
    -0.7
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/41.0+0.0
    Medium2/131.8-0.3
    Low1/290.5-0.5

    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

    S. Montembeault
    MTL · 38/42 · .905
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/81.8+0.8
    Medium1/222.5+1.5
    Low2/420.7-1.3

    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

    95 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PHI
    57 shots
    5
    Final
    95 shots
    MTL
    38 shots
    4
    PHI attackMTL attack
    PHI MTL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, MTL 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
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:47 on ice
    T. Zegras
    #46 · C · PHI
    0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 23:24 on ice · -1
    L. Hutson
    #48 · D · MTL
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:23 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Nov 4
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:31 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 projection model gives this a 50% win probability for either side—2.4 expected goals per team. This is a genuine toss-up.

    The Flyers own the underlying play: 51.0% expected goals at 5v5 versus Montreal's 48.0%. But the Canadiens have momentum. They're 8-2-0 over their last 10 games, a sign they're executing at a different level right now.

    Regression looms for Montreal. The Canadiens' PDO sits at 1.018—running hot—while Philadelphia's is 1.008. That gap suggests Montreal's outperformance includes luck; the Flyers, despite better expected goals, have lagged their xG line.

    The Canadiens also own the rest advantage: three days of recovery versus the Flyers' one. It won't overcome talent disparity if one emerges.

    Watch goaltending. A. Kolosov faces a back-to-back for Philadelphia. The workload raises a question: backup start or tired starter? Either way, Montreal gets an opening.

    Owen Tippett (Philadelphia) has 0.88 xG per 60, 19 goals and 18 assists, shooting at 12.1%. Cole Caufield (Montreal) operates at 0.97 xG per 60, 33 goals and 16 assists, at 20.0% shooting.

    Christian Dvorak (Philadelphia) carries 0.81 xG per 60 with 12 goals and 21 assists, shooting 11.2%. Oliver Kapanen (Montreal) sits at 0.83 xG per 60, 19 goals and 12 assists, at 17.8% shooting.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PHI 50%
    50%
    PHI
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    PHI50MTL

    PHI by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.4–2.4 MTL; 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
    PHI← edge
    edge →MTL
    51.0%48.0%
    48.0%49.0%
    2.262.41
    2.202.62
    1.962.24
    1.821.96
    1.0081.018

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.008 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    PHI
    6-4-0
    +4 GD · 1d rest
    MTL
    8-2-0
    +7 GD · 3d rest
    1.008
    PHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.018
    MTL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    Regression watch
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • A. Kolosov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Canadiens are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Canadiens have 2 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    PHI
    Expected in goal
    A. Kolosov
    back-to-back.905 last start
    Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 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.

    MTL
    Expected in goal
    S. Montembeault
    3 days rest.824 last start
    Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
    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
    MTL
    Cole Caufield33G 16A
    0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
    Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
    0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next