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

Flyers hold off the Panthers

The verdict · stolen

The Flyers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.28–3.24 and won anyway.

PHI 4 · FLA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:37 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 beat Florida 4–2 while being comprehensively outchanced. The Panthers generated 3.24 expected goals to the Flyers' 2.28 — a 59–41 split — yet lost. This was a goaltending heist.

The dominance was real. Florida took 27 shot attempts to Philadelphia's 18 and created 4 high-danger chances against 3. By every measure of play, the Panthers controlled the game. The scoreboard told a different story.

D. Vladar made it stick. He stopped 25 of 27 shots (0.926 SV%), recording 1.24 goals above expected. S. Bobrovsky allowed 4 goals on 18 shots (0.778 SV%), giving up 1.72 more than expected. The gap between the pipes decided everything.

Both teams attacked the rush with equal precision. Philadelphia converted 3 of 23 rush chances; Florida converted 2 of 22. Efficiency on high-leverage plays kept Philadelphia alive, but it was Vladar who won the game.

Sean Couturier sealed it in the third period, tipping in a doorstep chance at 19:35 to extend Philadelphia's lead beyond reach. The Flyers' goaltending had already absorbed the Panthers' dominance; that goal simply put it away.

This was the kind of win that inflates one team's confidence while deflating another — a 4–2 scoreline that badly misrepresented who played the better game. For Philadelphia, lucky is better than dominant.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 26
PHI
4
FLA
2

Flyers hold off the Panthers

Chances 2.3 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.28
FLA
3.24
41% of the chances59%

The board read PHI 4, FLA 2. The chances read PHI 2.3, FLA 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
+1.7
goals above expected
PHI2.28 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA3.24 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers scored 1.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:21FLAB. Marchand0–1
  2. P2 05:16FLAC. Verhaeghe0–2
  3. P2 07:57PHIE. Andrae1–2
  4. P2 11:13PHIM. Michkov2–2
  5. P3 19:14PHIT. Foerster3–2
  6. P3 19:35PHIS. Couturier4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
35 shots
4
Final
77 shots
FLA
42 shots
2
PHI attackFLA attack
PHI FLA Goal
35
shots · 4 in
42
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIFLA
0 / 3
0.63 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.95 xG
2 / 10
1.14 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.65 xG
2 / 38
0.51 xG
Low
1 / 38
0.64 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Vladar
+1.2
PHI · 25/27
F
S. Bobrovsky
−1.7
FLA · 14/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers hold off the Panthers

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 7–15
  1. 05:21FLAB. Marchand(S. Bennett, C. Verhaeghe)0–1
2ndshots 5–5
  1. 05:16FLAC. Verhaeghe(S. Bennett, A. Ekblad)0–2
  2. 07:57PHIE. Andrae(J. Drysdale, O. Tippett)1–2
  3. 11:13PHIM. Michkov(E. Andrae, J. Drysdale)2–2
3rdshots 6–7
  1. 19:14PHIT. Foerster(T. Sanheim, C. York)3–2
  2. 19:35PHIS. Couturier(C. Dvorak)4–2

score reads PHI–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.28
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.044
PHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.28Expected goals3.24
FLA 59% of the chance quality
18Shots on goal27
3High-danger chances4
51All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: PHI 48% · FLA 52%
Faceoffs · FLA won60%off60%neu33%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI0 / 3 · 0.63 xG
FLA0 / 4 · 0.95 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI2 / 10 · 1.14 xG
FLA1 / 16 · 1.65 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI2 / 38 · 0.51 xG
FLA1 / 38 · 0.64 xG

PHI went 2-for-38 from low danger on 0.51 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
4 G · 2.28 xG · +1.7
FLA
2 G · 3.24 xG · -1.2
012345

PHI finished +1.7 against expected, FLA -1.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST2/12
SNAP0/8
TIP IN2/4
BACKHAND0/6
SLAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/16
FLA
WRIST2/26
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/2
SLAP0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/16
PHI
FLA
Off the rush
3 G on 23
1.75 xG
2 G on 22
1.76 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.16 xG
0 G on 6
0.63 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 2-for-12, FLA 2-for-26. 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 · 25/27 · .926
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.9+0.9
Medium1/161.6+0.7
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. Bobrovsky
FLA · 14/18 · .778
-1.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.6+0.6
Medium2/101.1-0.9
Low2/380.5-1.5

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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
35 shots
4
Final
77 shots
FLA
42 shots
2
PHI attackFLA attack
PHI FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, FLA 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. Drysdale
#9 · D · PHI
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 22:33 on ice · +1
C. Verhaeghe
#23 · C · FLA
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:20 on ice
E. Andrae
#36 · D · PHI
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:37 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Nov 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:36 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 2.4 to 2.5 goal game with Florida at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as the data offers.

Philadelphia holds a 51.0% expected-goals advantage, suggesting higher-quality shot generation. That advantage evaporates in possession: Florida controls play at 52.0% Corsi, spending more time in the offensive zone. The underlying offensive talent tilts slightly toward the visitors, but territorial control belongs to the home team.

The PDO numbers reveal the luck layers. Philadelphia sits at 1.008—they're scoring above their underlying shot quality. Florida is at 0.989, underperforming on the luck-adjusted scale. In a true coin flip, neither team's fortune can be trusted to hold.

Both goaltenders are on back-to-backs. D. Tarasov and S. Ersson may be fatigued or benched for backups; either way, the crease is a question mark.

The Flyers' scorers. Owen Tippett generates 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes with 19 goals, 18 assists, and a 12.1% shooting rate. Christian Dvorak follows at 0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 21 assists, 11.2% conversion—a less lethal but still capable co-star.

The Panthers' pair. Sam Bennett tops the group at 0.97 xG/60, 18 goals, 19 assists, and six high-danger goals. Brad Marchand adds 0.93 xG/60, 17 goals, 9 assists, but his 19.5% shooting rate stands as an outlier likely to regress. Bennett and Marchand both generate more dangerous chances per shot and convert at higher rates than the Flyers' tandem. Philadelphia's counter is territorial control: they win the shot-quality battle but lose the possession war.

So the model splits the difference. The Flyers hold the advantage in expected production; the Panthers control territory and convert at higher rates. Neither possesses a structural edge. Philadelphia's PDO suggests they've been fortunate—a streak that rarely lasts. The goaltender situation adds volatility: fatigue could shift the matchup to backups or lesser-rested starters.

This game hinges on variance. Goaltender availability, Philadelphia's shooting luck, and Florida's efficiency sustainability will determine the outcome. The 51% reading is fair. Pick your coin side.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 51%
51%
FLA
Model favorite
49%
51%
PHI50FLA

FLA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.4–2.5 FLA; 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 →FLA
51.0%49.0%
48.0%52.0%
2.262.48
2.202.56
1.961.98
1.822.21
1.0080.989

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.989) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PHI
5-3-2
-2 GD · 1d rest
FLA
6-4-0
+5 GD · 1d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • D. Tarasov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • S. Ersson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
S. Ersson
back-to-back.882 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.

FLA
Expected in goal
D. Tarasov
back-to-back.923 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next