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

Flyers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

SJS 1 · PHI 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:40 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 4-1 Flyers win understated the dominance: Philadelphia controlled 66% of 5v5 expected goals, a gap so vast that the scoreline felt generous to San Jose. The Sharks didn't just lose the possession battle—they underperformed their own already-poor metrics by 0.95 goals, suggesting even their limited chances didn't materialize.

Philadelphia's control was total. They held 62% of shot attempts (30–18 on goal), edged high-danger chances 7–2, and converted the rush with terrifying efficiency—3 goals on just 21 chances. D. Vladar, the Flyers' goaltender, made 17 saves on 18 shots, beating his expected performance by 0.95 goals.

The goaltending split told a story. A. Nedeljkovic stopped 26 of 29 for San Jose, a 0.897 save percentage that exceeded his expected mark by 0.72 goals—respectable work against a relentless opponent. But it couldn't matter. The Sharks created little, and what little they did create didn't find the net.

Travis Konecny's wrist shot from the wing (P3, 18:17) was the turning point—a moment that codified what the numbers had been saying all night: San Jose had no answer.

The Three Stars:

  • C. Dvorak (PHI) — 1G, 1A in 19:01
  • T. Konecny (PHI) — 1G, 1A in 17:26
  • J. Drysdale (PHI) — 1A in 23:15
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 9
SJS
1
PHI
4

Flyers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.9 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
1.95
PHI
3.72
34% of the chances66%

The board read SJS 1, PHI 4. The chances read SJS 1.9, PHI 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
+0.3
goals above expected
PHI3.72 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS1.95 expected · 1 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 11:33SJSC. Graf1–0
  2. P1 18:39PHIC. Dvorak1–1
  3. P2 03:20PHIC. Grundstrom1–2
  4. P2 19:48PHIN. Cates1–3
  5. P3 18:17PHIT. KonecnyEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
26 shots
1
Final
68 shots
PHI
42 shots
4
SJS attackPHI attack
SJS PHI Goal
26
shots · 1 in
42
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSPHI
0 / 2
0.62 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.70 xG
1 / 9
0.90 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.37 xG
0 / 27
0.43 xG
Low
1 / 43
0.66 xG

High-danger looks: SJS 0 of 2, PHI 1 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Vladar
+0.9
PHI · 17/18
B
A. Nedeljkovic
+0.7
SJS · 26/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 3–16
  1. 11:33SJSC. Graf(J. Klingberg, W. Smith)1–0
  2. 18:39PHIC. Dvorak(T. Zegras, T. Konecny)1–1
2ndshots 8–10
  1. 03:20PHIC. Grundstrom(N. Seeler, T. Sanheim)1–2
  2. 19:48PHIN. Cates(B. Brink, J. Drysdale)1–3
3rdshots 7–4
  1. 18:17PHIT. Konecnyempty net(C. Dvorak)1–4

score reads SJS–PHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.72
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.038
PHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
62.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.95Expected goals3.72
PHI 66% of the chance quality
18Shots on goal30
2High-danger chances7
38All attempts (Corsi)62
Adjusted for score: SJS 40% · PHI 60%
Faceoffs · PHI won60%off67%neu71%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS0 / 2 · 0.62 xG
PHI1 / 7 · 1.70 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS1 / 9 · 0.90 xG
PHI2 / 12 · 1.37 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS0 / 27 · 0.43 xG
PHI1 / 43 · 0.66 xG

PHI went 1-for-7 from high danger on 1.70 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
1 G · 1.95 xG · -0.9
PHI
4 G · 3.72 xG · +0.3
012345

SJS finished -0.9 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
SJS
WRIST0/15
SNAP1/4
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/12
PHI
WRIST2/20
SNAP0/10
SLAP0/2
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND1/3
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/20
SJS
PHI
Off the rush
1 G on 17
1.68 xG
3 G on 21
2.15 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 7
0.97 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 0-for-15, PHI 2-for-20. 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
A. Nedeljkovic
SJS · 26/29 · .897
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.7+0.7
Medium2/121.4-0.6
Low1/430.7-0.3

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

D. Vladar
PHI · 17/18 · .944
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.6+0.6
Medium1/90.9-0.1
Low0/270.4+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

68 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SJS
26 shots
1
Final
68 shots
PHI
42 shots
4
SJS attackPHI attack
SJS PHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS 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
C. Dvorak
#22 · C · PHI
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:01 on ice · +1
T. Konecny
#11 · R · PHI
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:26 on ice · +1
J. Drysdale
#9 · D · PHI
0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 23:15 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 9
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:39 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

San Jose projects to 2.3 goals, Philadelphia to 2.5, and the Flyers are favored at 55% win probability—marginally better odds in what is essentially a pick'em.

The edge belongs to the team that owns the territorial game. Philadelphia leads 51.0% xG to San Jose's 48.0% at 5v5, a meaningful advantage in sustained pressure. Their 48.0% Corsi to San Jose's 47.0% is essentially a wash on volume, but the underlying shot quality favors the Flyers. San Jose's -7 goal differential over their last ten flags their execution gap; Philadelphia's 1.008 PDO to San Jose's 0.998 also tilts toward the Flyers.

The Sharks' offensive firepower hinges on Pavol Regenda. He carries 1.10 xG/60, has five goals and an assist, and shoots at 16.1%—among the most efficient in the league. But there's a catch: Regenda is marked likely out for this one, which removes San Jose's primary attacking fulcrum. Igor Chernyshov becomes the alternative. He generates 0.91 xG/60, has six goals and eight assists, and maintains a 15.0% shooting rate. As San Jose's defensive weak link, he'll invite attention from the Flyers' forecheck.

Philadelphia counters with two midrange contributors. Owen Tippett leads with 19 goals, 18 assists, and 0.88 xG/60, two of his goals earned at high danger. Christian Dvorak carries 12 goals, 21 assists, and 0.81 xG/60, with three high-danger goals. As the Flyers' defensive weak link, he represents San Jose's best opportunity to exploit soft coverage. The depth the Flyers bring in this range gives them an edge in attrition; San Jose's lack of reinforcement when Regenda sits may prove decisive.

Philadelphia's slight territorial advantage and San Jose's roster questions tilt toward the Flyers—but not by much.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 55%
55%
PHI
Model favorite
45%
55%
SJS50PHI

PHI by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 2.3–2.5 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
SJS← edge
edge →PHI
48.0%51.0%
47.0%48.0%
2.332.26
2.562.20
1.991.96
2.321.82
0.9981.008

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.008) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SJS
5-5-0
-7 GD · 2d rest
PHI
6-4-0
+0 GD · 2d rest
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Sharks are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
SJS
Expected in goal
A. Nedeljkovic
2 days rest.966 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PHI
Expected in goal
S. Ersson
2 days rest.893 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

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
SJS
Pavol Regenda5G 1A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% 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