Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
← Thu, Nov 20 · the slate
Breakdown · STL at PHI

Flyers edge the Blues in overtime

Final / OTThu, Nov 20
STLSt. Louis Blues2PHIPhiladelphia Flyers3
The verdict · earned

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

STL 2 · PHI 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:57 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 Blues created seven high-danger chances to Philadelphia's five but couldn't finish, losing 3-2 in overtime. D. Vladar's 0.931 save percentage—a +0.82 overperformance against expected goals—locked down the most dangerous looks, while the Flyers converted when it mattered most.

Expected goals favored Philadelphia only slightly: 3.38 to 2.82. But the goal split tells a sharper story. St. Louis was 0-for-7 on high-danger chances, missing looks that would have shifted the game. Philadelphia was ruthless: 2-for-5 on dangerous chances and lethal on the rush, scoring three times on 35 transition opportunities. Vladar didn't allow a single high-danger chance to reach the back of the net.

Travis Sanheim's snap shot from the high slot at 03:51 of overtime ended it. J. Hofer made 25 of 28 shots (0.893 SV%); Vladar made 27 of 29 (0.931 SV%). The difference decided the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 20
STL
2
PHI
3

Flyers edge the Blues in overtime

Chances 2.8 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
2.82
PHI
3.38
45% of the chances55%

The board read STL 2, PHI 3. The chances read STL 2.8, PHI 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
−0.4
goals above expected
PHI3.38 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
STL2.82 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
  1. P1 05:31STLJ. Faulk1–0
  2. P1 12:08STLJ. FaulkPP2–0
  3. P2 17:57PHIR. Abols2–1
  4. P3 11:49PHIT. Foerster2–2
  5. OT 03:51PHIT. Sanheim2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
35 shots
2
Final
81 shots
PHI
46 shots
3
STL attackPHI attack
STL PHI Goal
35
shots · 2 in
46
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLPHI
0 / 7
1.45 xG
High danger
2 / 5
1.22 xG
1 / 7
0.80 xG
Medium
0 / 13
1.31 xG
1 / 35
0.57 xG
Low
1 / 46
0.85 xG

The Blues went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Vladar
+0.8
PHI · 27/29
B
J. Hofer
+0.4
STL · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers edge the Blues 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 9–12
  1. 05:31STLJ. Faulk(O. Sundqvist, N. Walker)1–0
  2. 12:08STLJ. Faulkpower play(J. Neighbours, J. Kyrou)2–0
2ndshots 10–9
  1. 17:57PHIR. Abols(O. Tippett, T. Zegras)2–1
3rdshots 7–5
  1. 11:49PHIT. Foerster(E. Andrae, T. Konecny)2–2
OTshots 3–2
  1. 03:51PHIT. Sanheim(T. Konecny, S. Couturier)2–3

score reads STL–PHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.38
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.4
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.006
PHI puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
56.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.82Expected goals3.38
PHI 55% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal28
7High-danger chances5
49All attempts (Corsi)64
Adjusted for score: STL 39% · PHI 61%
Faceoffs · PHI won53%off39%neu33%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL0 / 7 · 1.45 xG
PHI2 / 5 · 1.22 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL1 / 7 · 0.80 xG
PHI0 / 13 · 1.31 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL1 / 35 · 0.57 xG
PHI1 / 46 · 0.85 xG

STL went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.45 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
2 G · 2.82 xG · -0.8
PHI
3 G · 3.38 xG · -0.4
01234

STL finished -0.8 against expected, PHI -0.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST0/20
SNAP1/6
TIP IN0/4
SLAP1/2
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/14
PHI
WRIST0/19
SNAP2/14
TIP IN0/4
SLAP1/4
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/18
STL
PHI
Off the rush
1 G on 24
2.35 xG
3 G on 35
2.75 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.23 xG
0 G on 1
0.09 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-20, PHI 0-for-19. 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
J. Hofer
STL · 25/28 · .893
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.2-0.8
Medium0/131.3+1.3
Low1/460.8-0.1

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 · 27/29 · .931
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.4+1.4
Medium1/70.8-0.2
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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
STL
35 shots
2
Final
81 shots
PHI
46 shots
3
STL attackPHI attack
STL PHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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
J. Faulk
#72 · D · STL
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 24:59 on ice
T. Konecny
#11 · R · PHI
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:19 on ice · +2
T. Sanheim
#6 · D · PHI
1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 26:13 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Nov 20
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:54 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 2.3-2.5 goal game with the Flyers at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

St. Louis carries a -8 goal differential over their last 10 games, a sign that regression often follows. The underlying talent, though, looks remarkably balanced: the Blues post a 49.0% expected-goals share against Philadelphia's 51.0%, both sit 48.0% in Corsi, and neither has been lucky or unlucky at the rate of play—St. Louis at 1.000 PDO, the Flyers at 1.008. The model's toss-up verdict is earned.

The Flyers own a rest advantage: four days off to St. Louis's one. In a dead-even matchup, that gap matters.

J. Binnington takes the back-to-back for the Blues—a detail that could force either a backup appearance or a fatigued starter.

For the actual matchup, watch Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15G, 22A, 11.9% shooting) and Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13G, 24A, 10.8% shooting) drive the St. Louis attack. Snuggerud's two high-danger goals suggest he's hunting the dangerous areas. Owen Tippett (0.88 xG/60, 19G, 18A, 12.1% shooting) leads the Flyers, while Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12G, 21A, 11.2% shooting) operates at the margins. Three of Dvorak's 12 goals have come from high-danger areas—that concentration tends to regress.

In the end, the model is correct: it's a coin flip between two evenly-matched teams, separated only by rest and goaltending randomness.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 53%
53%
PHI
Model favorite
47%
53%
STL50PHI

PHI by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.3–2.5 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
STL← edge
edge →PHI
49.0%51.0%
48.0%48.0%
2.342.26
2.402.20
2.001.96
2.121.82
1.0001.008

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 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
STL
3-3-4
-8 GD · 1d rest
PHI
5-3-2
-2 GD · 4d rest
1.000
STL 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
  • J. Binnington is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Blues are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Flyers have 3 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
STL
Expected in goal
J. Binnington
back-to-back.897 last start
Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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
D. Vladar
4 days rest.821 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
STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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