Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater

Breakdown · PIT at PHI

Penguins pull away from the Flyers

FinalMon, Dec 1

PITPittsburgh Penguins5 PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 5 · PHI 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:27 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 and Pittsburgh generated identical high-danger chances—seven each—but Pittsburgh converted while Philadelphia didn't, turning a competitive shot pattern into a 5-1 blowout. The gap in finishing, not shot quality, explained the margin.

The underlying metrics told a closer story. Philadelphia held 52% of shot attempts (29–27) and expected goals split 45–55 (3.15–3.88). Pittsburgh held only a modest edge on xG. What opened the gap: Pittsburgh overperformed its xG by 1.12 goals, while Philadelphia underperformed by 2.15. Three goals of variance separated expectation from result.

T. Jarry (PIT) saved 2.15 goals above expected on 28/29 shots (0.966 SV%), posting a perfect record on high-danger chances. D. Vladar (PHI) conceded 1.12 more than expected, yielding 22/27 saves (0.815 SV%). The goaltending split tilted the entire result.

Pittsburgh's power play was sharp—three goals on ten shots. The Penguins scored four times on 22 rush chances.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 1

PIT

PHI

Penguins pull away from the Flyers

Chances 3.9 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

PIT

3.88

PHI

3.15

55% of the chances45%

The board read PIT 5, PHI 1. The chances read PIT 3.9, PHI 3.1.

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

Luck check

PIT

+1.1

goals above expected

PIT3.88 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

PHI3.15 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Flyers left 2.1 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 09:18PITS. Crosby1–0
P2 05:36PHIT. FoersterPP1–1
P2 08:08PITS. CrosbyPP2–1
P2 15:52PITB. RustPP3–1
P3 13:52PITT. NovakPP4–1
P3 15:33PITK. Hayes5–1

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

Where the shots came from

PIT

40 shots

Final

81 shots

PHI

41 shots

PIT PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PITPHI

1 / 7

1.94 xG

High danger

0 / 7

1.68 xG

4 / 13

1.34 xG

Medium

0 / 11

0.90 xG

0 / 34

0.59 xG

Low

1 / 36

0.56 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 7 from the slot.

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

In the net

T. Jarry

+2.1

PIT · 28/29

D-

D. Vladar

−1.1

PHI · 22/27

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Penguins pull away from the Flyers

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 7–8

09:18PITS. Crosby(B. Rust, A. Mantha)1–0

2ndshots 9–6

05:36PHIT. Foersterpower play(T. Konecny, T. Zegras)1–1
08:08PITS. Crosbypower play(B. Rust, E. Karlsson)2–1
15:52PITB. Rustpower play(E. Malkin, E. Karlsson)3–1

3rdshots 11–15

13:52PITT. Novakpower play(K. Letang, E. Malkin)4–1
15:33PITK. Hayes(P. Wotherspoon)5–1

score reads PIT–PHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.88

PIT chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.074

PIT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.88Expected goals3.15

PIT 55% of the chance quality

27Shots on goal29

7High-danger chances7

54All attempts (Corsi)54

Adjusted for score: PIT 45% · PHI 55%

Faceoffs · PHI won50%off50%neu48%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PIT1 / 7 · 1.94 xG

PHI0 / 7 · 1.68 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PIT4 / 13 · 1.34 xG

PHI0 / 11 · 0.90 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PIT0 / 34 · 0.59 xG

PHI1 / 36 · 0.56 xG

PIT went 4-for-13 from medium danger on 1.34 expected goals — 2.7 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PIT

5 G · 3.88 xG · +1.1

PHI

1 G · 3.15 xG · -2.1

0123456

PIT finished +1.1 against expected, PHI -2.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PIT

WRIST1/6

SNAP3/22

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND1/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/14

PHI

WRIST1/26

SNAP0/6

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/13

PIT

PHI

Off the rush

4 G on 22

2.50 xG

1 G on 28

2.67 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.85 xG

0 G on 2

0.25 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 1-for-6, PHI 1-for-26. PIT 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

T. Jarry

PIT · 28/29 · .966

+2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/71.7+1.7

Medium0/110.9+0.9

Low1/360.6-0.4

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

D. Vladar

PHI · 22/27 · .815

-1.1

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.9+0.9

Medium4/131.3-2.7

Low0/340.6+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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PIT

40 shots

Final

81 shots

PHI

41 shots

PIT PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT 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

B. Rust

#17 · R · PIT

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:05 on ice · +2

E. Karlsson

#65 · D · PIT

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:13 on ice · +1

S. Crosby

#87 · C · PIT

2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 18:13 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Dec 1

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:26 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 like the Flyers slightly. The projection runs 2.4–2.5 goals for Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia holding 52% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Form favors Philadelphia. Pittsburgh's minus-5 goal differential over their last ten games reads like a team being outplayed despite occasional fortunate bounces.

The season-long 5v5 data suggests equilibrium. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are dead even at 51.0% xG%. The Penguins hold a slight Corsi advantage at 50.0% to 48.0%. Both teams sit at sky-high PDO (Pittsburgh 1.012, Philadelphia 1.008), evidence that both are banking their share of breaks.

Goaltending is unsettled. D. Vladar and T. Jarry both work back-to-backs, opening the door to tired performances or a surprise bench call.

Players to Watch

PIT

Rickard Rakell — 1.01 xG/60, 13G 13A, 3 HD goals, 12.1% shooting

PHI

Owen Tippett — 0.88 xG/60, 19G 18A, 2 HD goals, 12.1% shooting
Christian Dvorak — 0.81 xG/60, 12G 21A, 3 HD goals, 11.2% shooting

Rakell operates at the volume Tippett and Dvorak cannot quite sustain. He's Pittsburgh's best weapon. Philadelphia spreads its scoring through Tippett and Dvorak, both of whom carry defensive responsibility—Dvorak in particular functions as a weak point when deployed on defense.

Neither team converts high-danger chances at any meaningful clip. Pittsburgh runs 0% on both high-danger and rebound opportunities. Philadelphia mirrors 0% on high-danger goals. Caleb Jones forms Pittsburgh's defensive vulnerability. The first team to break through their own low-danger-conversion ceiling likely wins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 52%

52%

PHI

Model favorite

48%

52%

PIT50PHI

PHI by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 2.4–2.5 PHI; 18% 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

PIT← edge

edge →PHI

51.0%51.0%

50.0%48.0%

2.662.26

2.552.20

2.451.96

2.121.82

1.0121.008

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.008) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

PIT

4-3-3

-5 GD · 1d rest

PHI

6-2-2

+1 GD · 1d rest

1.012

PIT 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

D. Vladar is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
T. Jarry is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Penguins are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PIT

Expected in goal

T. Jarry

back-to-back.769 last start

Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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

back-to-back.906 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.

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

PIT

Filip Hallander0G 3A

1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh

Rickard Rakell13G 13A

1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% 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