Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
← Sat, Nov 29 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at NJD

Flyers hold off the Devils

FinalSat, Nov 29
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers5NJDNew Jersey Devils3
The verdict · earned

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

PHI 5 · NJD 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:16 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 Devils generated higher expected goals (4.25 versus 3.68), yet lost 5-3. This gap represents the game's core divergence: New Jersey created the statistically superior overall chance pool, but Philadelphia's clinical finishing reversed it into a Flyers victory.

Both teams accumulated 32 shot attempts. The Flyers' edge was surgical: Philadelphia generated 0.089 xG per attempt, compared to 0.049 for New Jersey. That efficiency gap meant fewer Flyers touches carried significantly more threat.

Philadelphia converted 3 of 7 high-danger chances (43%). New Jersey registered 2 goals from low-danger spots, a sign of peripheral execution over prime scoring opportunities.

Off the rush, the Flyers scored 4 times on 28 chances; New Jersey, 2 of 28. Over identical looks, Philadelphia's execution diverged sharply.

D. Vladar recorded a 0.906 save percentage with a +0.68 overperformance above expected, typical when marginal stops compound into wins. J. Markstrom saved 27 of 31 (0.871 SV%) — the performance gap between managing routine volume and absorbing relentless offense.

The Flyers' 0.75-goal overperformance across the full game captures the margin: New Jersey's xG edge was deserved, but Philadelphia's precision in high-danger and rush scenarios proved decisive.

O. Tippett delivered 2 goals and an assist in 15:34, powering Philadelphia's attack. J. Bratt distributed 2 assists across 20:52 for New Jersey, while D. Mercer paired a goal with an assist in 18:49 — supporting production that couldn't bridge the execution gap.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 29
PHI
5
NJD
3

Flyers hold off the Devils

Chances 4.3 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
4.25
NJD
3.68
54% of the chances46%

The board read PHI 5, NJD 3. The chances read PHI 4.3, NJD 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
+0.8
goals above expected
PHI4.25 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD3.68 expected · 3 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 05:18PHIO. Tippett1–0
  2. P1 12:09NJDS. Nemec1–1
  3. P2 00:53PHIM. Michkov2–1
  4. P2 03:16PHIM. Michkov3–1
  5. P2 13:03PHIT. Zegras4–1
  6. P2 19:33NJDT. MeierPP4–2
  7. P3 06:28NJDD. Mercer4–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
39 shots
5
Final
88 shots
NJD
49 shots
3
PHI attackNJD attack
PHI NJD Goal
39
shots · 5 in
49
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHINJD
3 / 7
1.98 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.26 xG
2 / 18
1.92 xG
Medium
0 / 12
1.61 xG
0 / 23
0.35 xG
Low
2 / 57
0.82 xG

The Flyers buried 3 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
D. Vladar
+0.7
PHI · 29/32
B
J. Markstrom
+0.3
NJD · 27/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers hold off the Devils

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 8–6
  1. 05:18PHIO. Tippett(C. Dvorak, T. Zegras)1–0
  2. 12:09NJDS. Nemec(J. Bratt, N. Hischier)1–1
2ndshots 12–14
  1. 00:53PHIM. Michkov(T. Konecny, T. Sanheim)2–1
  2. 03:16PHIM. Michkov(T. Konecny, C. York)3–1
  3. 13:03PHIT. Zegras(O. Tippett)4–1
  4. 19:33NJDT. Meierpower play(D. Mercer, J. Bratt)4–2
3rdshots 12–12
  1. 06:28NJDD. Mercer4–3
  2. 19:11PHIO. Tippettempty net5–3

score reads PHI–NJD

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.25
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.064
PHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
39.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.25Expected goals3.68
PHI 54% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal32
7High-danger chances6
48All attempts (Corsi)75
Adjusted for score: PHI 34% · NJD 66%
Faceoffs · NJD won54%off48%neu75%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI3 / 7 · 1.98 xG
NJD1 / 6 · 1.26 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI2 / 18 · 1.92 xG
NJD0 / 12 · 1.61 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI0 / 23 · 0.35 xG
NJD2 / 57 · 0.82 xG

NJD went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.61 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
5 G · 4.25 xG · +0.8
NJD
3 G · 3.68 xG · -0.7
0123456

PHI finished +0.8 against expected, NJD -0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST0/18
SNAP0/8
BACKHAND2/4
TIP IN0/3
SLAP1/3
DEFLECTED1/2
OTHER1/10
NJD
WRIST1/15
SNAP0/13
BACKHAND1/8
TIP IN0/7
SLAP1/5
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/26
PHI
NJD
Off the rush
4 G on 28
3.25 xG
2 G on 28
2.37 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.21 xG
1 G on 6
0.88 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 0-for-18, NJD 1-for-15. PHI 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 · 29/32 · .906
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.3+0.3
Medium0/121.6+1.6
Low2/570.8-1.2

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. Markstrom
NJD · 27/31 · .871
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/72.0-1.0
Medium2/181.9-0.1
Low0/230.3+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
39 shots
5
Final
88 shots
NJD
49 shots
3
PHI attackNJD attack
PHI NJD Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, NJD 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
O. Tippett
#74 · R · PHI
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 15:34 on ice · +2
J. Bratt
#63 · L · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:52 on ice · -2
D. Mercer
#91 · C · NJD
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 18:49 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 29
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:15 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 2.4–2.5 goal game with the Devils favored at 51% win probability. This is a pick'em.

Jersey's advantage is territorial. The Devils lead a 51.0% Corsi% against Philadelphia's 48.0%, meaning sustained offensive pressure. Philadelphia counters with marginally superior shot quality—51.0% expected goals versus 50.0%—but the margin offers no decisive edge.

The Devils run cold at 0.971 PDO, unsustained luck due for positive regression. Philadelphia sits at 1.008, tracking their underlying play. A swing in either direction reshapes the contest.

Both teams start their goaltenders on back-to-backs: J. Allen for New Jersey and S. Ersson for Philadelphia. Fatigue is a real variable. The team managing transitions better controls momentum.

Offensively, Philadelphia leans on Owen Tippett (19 goals, 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes, 2 high-danger goals) and Christian Dvorak (12 goals, 0.81 xG/60, 3 high-danger goals, 11.2% shooting). Tippett finishes crisply. Dvorak's 21 assists mark him as an efficient distributor.

New Jersey counters with Timo Meier (13 goals, 1.08 xG/60, 3 high-danger goals, 6.7% shooting) and Jack Hughes (18 goals, 0.88 xG/60, 1 high-danger goal, 11.5% shooting). Meier's low shooting percentage relative to volume suggests room for improvement. Hughes runs high in shot and assist volume.

With both teams finishing at league average from high-danger areas and neither defense a weakness, the deciding factor is which team sustains territorial advantage without losing transition focus. The pick'em odds stand.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NJD 51%
51%
NJD
Model favorite
49%
51%
PHI50NJD

NJD by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.4–2.5 NJD; 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 →NJD
51.0%50.0%
48.0%51.0%
2.262.45
2.202.50
1.961.66
1.822.23
1.0080.971

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.971) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PHI
6-2-2
+1 GD · 1d rest
NJD
6-3-1
+1 GD · 1d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Allen 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.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
S. Ersson
back-to-back.903 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.

NJD
Expected in goal
J. Allen
back-to-back1.000 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page