Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater

Breakdown · BUF at PHI

S. Ersson stands tall as the Flyers edge the Sabres

FinalWed, Dec 3

BUFBuffalo Sabres2 PHIPhiladelphia Flyers5

The verdict · earned

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

BUF 2 · PHI 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:47 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

S. Ersson's goaltending was the difference: he stopped 27 of 29 shots (0.931 SV%) and saved 2.80 goals above expected, while C. Ellis surrendered 30 of 35 (0.857 SV%) for Buffalo. The 5–2 final scoreline belies how close the underlying game was — expected goals finished 5.30–4.80 (52–48 split). By xG metrics, this was a near-even contest, but Ersson's extraordinary performance turned it into a comfortable Flyers win.

Philadelphia had a modest edge on shot volume, holding 55% of attempts (35–29 on goal), but the teams were nearly equal in high-danger chances (8–9). The Flyers' edge came from efficiency: they converted 3 of 27 rush chances and scored twice from low-danger areas where goaltenders have to make the save. Buffalo created quality looks — including 4 rebound opportunities — but couldn't finish.

Owen Tippett's batted-in shot from the doorstep (second period, 12:43) served as the game's inflection point. Philadelphia's power play reinforced the advantage, recording 2 goals on 21 shots (1.29 xG). Buffalo's second-chance attempts went nowhere: 4 rebound opportunities, 0 conversions. The Flyers' pressure generated 6 rebound chances and converted 2.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 3

BUF

PHI

S. Ersson stands tall as the Flyers edge the Sabres

Chances 4.8 – 5.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

4.80

PHI

5.30

48% of the chances53%

The board read BUF 2, PHI 5. The chances read BUF 4.8, PHI 5.3.

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

Luck check

PHI

−0.3

goals above expected

PHI5.30 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF4.80 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Sabres left 2.8 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 04:08BUFJ. ZuckerPP1–0
P1 08:26PHIT. KonecnyPP1–1
P1 09:04PHIT. ZegrasPP1–2
P1 09:25PHIB. Brink1–3
P2 01:45PHIN. Cates1–4
P2 11:48BUFB. Byram2–4
P2 12:43PHIO. Tippett2–5

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

49 shots

Final

96 shots

PHI

47 shots

BUF PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFPHI

1 / 9

2.07 xG

High danger

3 / 8

2.31 xG

1 / 22

2.27 xG

Medium

0 / 22

2.56 xG

0 / 34

0.46 xG

Low

2 / 38

0.43 xG

The Flyers buried 3 of 8 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A+

S. Ersson

+2.8

PHI · 27/29

C. Ellis

+0.3

BUF · 30/35

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

S. Ersson stands tall as the Flyers edge the Sabres

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 4–11

04:08BUFJ. Zuckerpower play(J. Doan, J. Norris)1–0
08:26PHIT. Konecnypower play(M. Michkov, T. Sanheim)1–1
09:04PHIT. Zegraspower play(T. Sanheim, T. Konecny)1–2
09:25PHIB. Brink(N. Cates, N. Grebenkin)1–3

2ndshots 14–12

01:45PHIN. Cates(B. Brink, J. Drysdale)1–4
11:48BUFB. Byram(A. Tuch, J. Quinn)2–4
12:43PHIO. Tippett(M. Michkov, S. Couturier)2–5

3rdshots 11–12no goals

score reads BUF–PHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.30

PHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.3

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.043

PHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

51.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.80Expected goals5.30

PHI 53% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal35

9High-danger chances8

65All attempts (Corsi)68

Adjusted for score: BUF 55% · PHI 45%

Faceoffs · PHI won42%off58%neu54%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF1 / 9 · 2.07 xG

PHI3 / 8 · 2.31 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF1 / 22 · 2.27 xG

PHI0 / 22 · 2.56 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF0 / 34 · 0.46 xG

PHI2 / 38 · 0.43 xG

PHI went 0-for-22 from medium danger on 2.56 expected goals — 2.6 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

2 G · 4.80 xG · -2.8

PHI

5 G · 5.30 xG · -0.3

0123456

BUF finished -2.8 against expected, PHI -0.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

SNAP1/15

WRIST1/20

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/0

OTHER0/16

PHI

SNAP3/24

WRIST1/13

SLAP0/3

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/0

BAT1/1

OTHER0/21

BUF

PHI

Off the rush

1 G on 33

3.23 xG

3 G on 27

3.27 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.82 xG

2 G on 6

1.30 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-15, PHI 3-for-24. 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

C. Ellis

BUF · 30/35 · .857

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/82.3-0.7

Medium0/222.6+2.6

Low2/380.4-1.6

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

S. Ersson

PHI · 27/29 · .931

+2.8

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/92.1+1.1

Medium1/222.3+1.3

Low0/340.5+0.5

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

96 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

49 shots

Final

96 shots

PHI

47 shots

BUF PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF 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

T. Sanheim

#6 · D · PHI

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 23:42 on ice · -1

N. Cates

#27 · L · PHI

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 17:43 on ice · +2

T. Konecny

#11 · R · PHI

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:35 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Dec 3

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:45 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 spread with Philadelphia at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Buffalo and Philadelphia are nearly indistinguishable at 5v5. The Sabres own 50.0% expected goals share with 49.0% Corsi; the Flyers counter with 51.0% xG% and 48.0% Corsi. That's a variance-driven edge to Philly, not a sustained difference. Both teams have climbed slightly above true talent—Buffalo's 1.020 PDO and Philadelphia's 1.008 PDO suggest cooling ahead. The Sabres run hotter, meaning they carry more regression risk.

Goaltending adds volatility. D. Vladar and U. Luukkonen are both on back-to-backs. Expect either a backup start or a fatigued starter from one side; the team that avoids that trap gains a marginal edge.

The offensive edge tilts Philly. Jason Zucker (1.07 xG/60, 14 goals) and Josh Doan (1.01 xG/60, 15 goals) drive Buffalo's volume with elite finishing rates of 15.1% and 11.5% respectively. Owen Tippett answers with 19 goals on 0.88 xG/60 and a 12.1% shooting rate. Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 21 assists) provides depth setup that Zucker and Doan must generate themselves. Philly's playmaking advantage is marginal but real.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 53%

53%

PHI

Model favorite

47%

53%

BUF50PHI

PHI by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.4–2.5 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

BUF← edge

edge →PHI

50.0%51.0%

49.0%48.0%

2.552.26

2.552.20

2.351.96

1.901.82

1.0201.008

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.008) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BUF

6-4-0

+5 GD · 1d rest

PHI

6-3-1

-2 GD · 1d rest

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

D. Vladar is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
U. Luukkonen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

BUF

Expected in goal

U. Luukkonen

back-to-back.958 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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.815 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

BUF

Jason Zucker14G 14A

1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh

Josh Doan15G 18A

1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% 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