Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater

Breakdown · EDM at PHI

Oilers edge the Flyers in overtime

Final / OTWed, Nov 12

EDMEdmonton Oilers2 PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1

The verdict · coin flip

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

EDM 2 · PHI 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:38 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

Edmonton beat Philadelphia 2–1 in overtime despite the Flyers commanding the chances. Philadelphia generated five high-danger looks to three and held a 2.86–2.74 xG edge, yet failed to convert either advantage into a win. That margin between quality generated and results delivered explains everything.

S. Skinner (EDM) was the difference. He stopped every high-danger shot he faced and finished +1.9 against expected — a save rate that alone swung momentum. D. Vladar (PHI) performed well at +0.74 but couldn't match the moment. Jack Roslovic's wrist shot from the slot at 01:19 closed it.

Philadelphia's underlying advantage didn't translate. They held 40% of shot attempts and posted five high-danger chances to three, yet scored zero from those premium looks. That's not variance — that's waste. They underperformed xG by 1.86. Edmonton, meanwhile, played tighter throughout. More shots than the Flyers, but from cleaner ice. Superior goaltending when it mattered most.

One team possessed the advantage in quality; the other possessed the finish when it counted. In a one-goal game decided in overtime, precision beats volume. The Flyers didn't lose because the system was unfair. They lost because they couldn't finish.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Nov 12

EDM

PHI

Oilers edge the Flyers in overtime

Chances 2.7 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Oilers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

EDM

2.74

PHI

2.86

49% of the chances51%

The board read EDM 2, PHI 1. The chances read EDM 2.7, PHI 2.9.

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

Luck check

EDM

−0.7

goals above expected

EDM2.74 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

PHI2.86 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Flyers left 1.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 19:05EDME. Bouchard1–0
P2 15:38PHIM. MichkovPP1–1
OT 01:19EDMJ. Roslovic2–1

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

Where the shots came from

EDM

41 shots

Final

75 shots

PHI

34 shots

EDM PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

EDMPHI

1 / 3

0.67 xG

High danger

0 / 5

1.14 xG

1 / 13

1.44 xG

Medium

0 / 13

1.30 xG

0 / 39

0.63 xG

Low

1 / 26

0.42 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

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

In the net

S. Skinner

+1.9

EDM · 20/21

D. Vladar

+0.7

PHI · 29/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Oilers edge the Flyers in overtime

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 13–5

19:05EDME. Bouchard(C. McDavid, M. Savoie)1–0

2ndshots 11–6

15:38PHIM. Michkovpower play(C. York, T. Konecny)1–1

3rdshots 5–9no goals

OTshots 2–1

01:19EDMJ. Roslovic(M. Savoie)2–1

score reads EDM–PHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.74

EDM chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.7

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.014

EDM puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

55.6%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.74Expected goals2.86

PHI 51% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal21

3High-danger chances5

55All attempts (Corsi)44

Adjusted for score: EDM 54% · PHI 46%

Faceoffs · PHI won38%off33%neu29%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

EDM1 / 3 · 0.67 xG

PHI0 / 5 · 1.14 xG

Medium dangermid-range

EDM1 / 13 · 1.44 xG

PHI0 / 13 · 1.30 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

EDM0 / 39 · 0.63 xG

PHI1 / 26 · 0.42 xG

PHI went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.30 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

EDM

2 G · 2.74 xG · -0.7

PHI

1 G · 2.86 xG · -1.9

01234

EDM finished -0.7 against expected, PHI -1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

EDM

WRIST1/21

SNAP0/6

SLAP1/8

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/14

PHI

WRIST0/10

SNAP1/12

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/10

EDM

PHI

Off the rush

1 G on 27

2.15 xG

1 G on 24

2.30 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

0 G on 1

0.17 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 1-for-21, PHI 0-for-10.

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

S. Skinner

EDM · 20/21 · .952

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.1+1.1

Medium0/131.3+1.3

Low1/260.4-0.6

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 · 29/31 · .935

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.7-0.3

Medium1/131.4+0.4

Low0/390.6+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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

EDM

41 shots

Final

75 shots

PHI

34 shots

EDM PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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

M. Savoie

#22 · C · EDM

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:05 on ice · +2

C. York

#8 · D · PHI

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:44 on ice · -2

E. Bouchard

#2 · D · EDM

1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 23:45 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Nov 12

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:37 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

Philadelphia sits at 51% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Edmonton is running cold. Over their last 10 games, they're at -7 in goal differential—the kind of shortfall that eventually corrects. Their PDO is 0.982, a sign they're due for puck luck to shift their way. Their underlying metrics remain sharp: 52.0% expected goals share and 50.0% Corsi at 5-on-5. Philadelphia sits at 51.0% xG% and 48.0% Corsi—essentially matched at possession level but running slightly warmer (1.008 PDO).

The Flyers own a rest advantage: 4 days against Edmonton's 1. That compounds over 60 minutes.

Watch the goaltending. S. Skinner is on the back-to-back. Philadelphia might start a backup, or they might ride a tired starter. Either way, it's worth monitoring.

The matchups are clean. Zach Hyman is Edmonton's most dangerous forward—1.23 xG per 60, 14 goals, and 13 assists. His 13.0% shooting rate is sustainable, not variance. Connor McDavid joins him at 0.92 xG/60, 25 goals, and 33 assists, with the same solid 13.7% shooting rate. Philadelphia's top threats are Owen Tippett (0.88 xG/60, 19 goals, 18 assists, 2 high-danger goals) and Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 21 assists, 3 high-danger goals), both at sustainable rates of 12.1% and 11.2%.

Neither team generates rebound or high-danger goals at scale, which aligns with their balanced 5-on-5 profiles. Jake Walman is Edmonton's defensive soft spot; Christian Dvorak is Philadelphia's.

A coin flip it is.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 51%

51%

PHI

Model favorite

49%

51%

EDM50PHI

PHI by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.4–2.5 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

EDM← edge

edge →PHI

52.0%51.0%

50.0%48.0%

2.642.26

2.472.20

2.131.96

2.291.82

0.9821.008

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 1.008) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

EDM

4-3-3

-7 GD · 1d rest

PHI

6-3-1

+5 GD · 4d rest

0.982

EDM PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

S. Skinner is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Oilers are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
The Flyers have 3 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

EDM

Expected in goal

S. Skinner

back-to-back.818 last start

Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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

4 days rest.786 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

EDM

Zach Hyman14G 13A

1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh

Connor McDavid25G 33A

0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% 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