Backcheck
Recap · BUF at PHI

S. Ersson stands tall as the Flyers edge the Sabres

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

By the ModelJul 11, 6:47 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
BUF
Buffalo Sabres
2
Home
PHI
Philadelphia Flyers
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.80Expected goals5.30
53% share for the better side
29Shot attempts (SOG)35
9High-danger chances8
65Corsi (all attempts)68
Score-adjusted: 55% / 45%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. EllisBUF
+0.3
S. ErssonPHI
+2.8

BUF finished -2.8 against expected, PHI -0.3 — S. Ersson (PHI) saved 2.8 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
T. Sanheim
#6 · D · PHI
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 23:42 TOI · -1
N. Cates
#27 · L · PHI
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 17:43 TOI · +2
T. Konecny
#11 · R · PHI
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:35 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • S. Ersson (PHI) stopped 2.8 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 17 high-danger chances combined (PHI 8, BUF 9).
  • PHI scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • PHI was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 27 rush chances.
  • PHI created 6 rebound opportunities (2 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • BUF created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • BUF underperformed xG by 2.8 — wasted quality chances.
  • S. Ersson (PHI) saved 2.8 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • PHI power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 21 PP shots (1.29 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · BUF at PHI · 7:30 PM ET

Sabres at Flyers: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 6:45 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
PHI
Model favorite
47%
53%
BUF50PHI

PHI by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.42.5 PHI; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

BUF← edge
edge →PHI
50.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
49.0%Corsi%48.0%
2.55xGF / 602.26
2.55xGA / 602.20
2.35Goals for / gm1.96
1.90Goals against / gm1.82
1.020PDO — luck, not skill1.008

The season numbers split 33 — no clear process edge — and PDO (1.020 vs 1.008) says BUF has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters