Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
Breakdown · PHI at DAL

Stars run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

PHI 1 · DAL 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:17 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 underperformed their expected goals by 1.16 — they had 2.16 xG but scored just once. Dallas still crushed them 5–1, controlling 67% of 5v5 expected goals (4.33–2.16) and generating far better scoring chances. High-danger chances went 8–4 Dallas's way. J. Oettinger's elite goaltending (1.16 above expected saves) turned Dallas's dominance into a rout, while Philadelphia's net results failed to match their underlying chances.

Dallas's finish was clinical. They generated 0.072 expected goals per shot versus Philadelphia's 0.049 — fewer attempts, but sharper. The rush was lethal: four goals on 32 chances, a conversion rate that punished transition lapses. Tyler Seguin's wrist shot from the high slot at 13:51 of the third marked the turning point, though Dallas had already seized control.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 15
PHI
1
DAL
5

Stars run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.2 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.16
DAL
4.33
33% of the chances67%

The board read PHI 1, DAL 5. The chances read PHI 2.2, DAL 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
+0.7
goals above expected
DAL4.33 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI2.16 expected · 1 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 03:48DALL. Bichsel0–1
  2. P2 11:39DALJ. Robertson0–2
  3. P2 17:02DALJ. Robertson0–3
  4. P3 09:29DALJ. RobertsonPP0–4
  5. P3 10:57PHIC. Dvorak1–4
  6. P3 13:51DALT. Seguin1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
31 shots
1
Final
78 shots
DAL
47 shots
5
PHI attackDAL attack
PHI DAL Goal
31
shots · 1 in
47
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIDAL
1 / 4
0.90 xG
High danger
1 / 8
1.83 xG
0 / 9
0.93 xG
Medium
3 / 17
1.88 xG
0 / 31
0.34 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.62 xG

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

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Oettinger
+1.2
DAL · 20/21
D
D. Vladar
−0.7
PHI · 23/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars run the Flyers 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 3–10
  1. 03:48DALL. Bichsel(A. Petrovic, J. Hryckowian)0–1
2ndshots 11–6
  1. 11:39DALJ. Robertson(T. Seguin, R. Hintz)0–2
  2. 17:02DALJ. Robertson(R. Hintz, E. Lindell)0–3
3rdshots 7–12
  1. 09:29DALJ. Robertsonpower play(R. Hintz, M. Rantanen)0–4
  2. 10:57PHIC. Dvorak(O. Tippett, J. Drysdale)1–4
  3. 13:51DALT. Seguin(I. Lyubushkin)1–5

score reads PHI–DAL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.33
DAL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.061
DAL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
57.7%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.16Expected goals4.33
DAL 67% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal28
4High-danger chances8
44All attempts (Corsi)60
Adjusted for score: PHI 48% · DAL 52%
Faceoffs · DAL won50%off53%neu35%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI1 / 4 · 0.90 xG
DAL1 / 8 · 1.83 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI0 / 9 · 0.93 xG
DAL3 / 17 · 1.88 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI0 / 31 · 0.34 xG
DAL1 / 35 · 0.62 xG

DAL went 3-for-17 from medium danger on 1.88 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
1 G · 2.16 xG · -1.2
DAL
5 G · 4.33 xG · +0.7
0123456

PHI finished -1.2 against expected, DAL +0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
SNAP0/18
WRIST0/0
BACKHAND1/5
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/13
DAL
SNAP0/20
WRIST4/13
BACKHAND1/6
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/13
PHI
DAL
Off the rush
1 G on 20
1.85 xG
4 G on 32
2.94 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.19 xG
0 G on 5
0.90 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PHI went 0-for-18, DAL 0-for-20. DAL scored 4 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 · 23/28 · .821
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/81.8+0.8
Medium3/171.9-1.1
Low1/350.6-0.4

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

J. Oettinger
DAL · 20/21 · .952
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium0/90.9+0.9
Low0/310.3+0.3

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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
31 shots
1
Final
78 shots
DAL
47 shots
5
PHI attackDAL attack
PHI DAL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, DAL 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
J. Robertson
#21 · L · DAL
3 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 16:44 on ice · +2
R. Hintz
#24 · C · DAL
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 14:35 on ice · +2
T. Seguin
#91 · C · DAL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:16 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 15
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:41 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 models can't decide, and they're right not to. Dallas projects as a 52% favorite in a game the numbers expect to land 2.3 to 2.4 goals either way—which is to say: almost a coin flip.

The Stars' form looks sharper. They're 7-1-2 over their last ten, which buys credibility. But the underlying numbers reveal no such advantage. Both teams sit at 51.0% expected goals share at five-on-five, a sign that neither has truly separated. Philadelphia's Corsi% (48.0%) trails Dallas slightly (47.0%), but the difference is noise, not a structural advantage.

Where the gap opens is efficiency, not play. Dallas's PDO of 1.024 against Philadelphia's 1.008 means the Stars are running hotter—converting chances at a higher rate than their underlying process would predict. Regression is coming for Dallas.

C. DeSmith's status clouds the matchup. He's on a back-to-back, which could mean either a backup start or a starter running on fumes. Either way, it changes the shape of the game.

The player matchups favor neither team by much. Owen Tippett (19 goals, 0.88 xG/60) and Christian Dvorak (12 goals, 0.81 xG/60) lead Philadelphia's charge; Tippett's 2 high-danger goals and 12.1% shooting mark him as the sharper scorer. For Dallas, Jason Robertson (25 goals, 0.96 xG/60) and Michael Bunting (8 goals, 7.6% shooting) form the nucleus. Robertson owns 2 high-danger goals and a higher xG rate than any Flyer, making him the most dangerous individual on the ice.

Dvorak's role compounds Philadelphia's problem: he's both their second-leading scorer and a defensive weak point, forcing them to accept risk for secondary scoring. Tyler Myers plays that same knife-edge for Dallas, making possession-dependent hockey a hazard for both sides.

The game hinges on regime: either the Stars' efficiency continues, or Philadelphia's underlying play breaks through the variance. The models split the difference because neither outcome is unlikely. Dallas's recent heat matters, but only slightly—the 52% win probability is honest.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 52%
52%
DAL
Model favorite
48%
52%
PHI50DAL

DAL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.3–2.4 DAL; 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 →DAL
51.0%51.0%
48.0%47.0%
2.262.36
2.202.29
1.962.07
1.821.68
1.0081.024

DAL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PHI
5-3-2
+1 GD · 2d rest
DAL
7-1-2
+9 GD · 1d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.024
DAL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • C. DeSmith is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Stars are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
2 days rest.935 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

DAL
Expected in goal
C. DeSmith
back-to-back1.000 last start
Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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.

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
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next