Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
← Tue, Dec 16 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at MTL

Flyers pull away from the Canadiens

FinalTue, Dec 16
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers4MTLMontreal Canadiens1
The verdict · coin flip

The Flyers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

PHI 4 · MTL 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:33 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

Expected goals suggested this was a close contest—Philadelphia's 2.79 against Montreal's 2.96. The actual 4-1 scoreline hinged on two asymmetries: elite goaltending and relentless finishing.

The Flyers erased their slight xG deficit through disciplined placement. They generated 0.071 xG per shot to Montreal's 0.052, a gap that compounds into dominance. In the high-danger zone, this edge crystallized. Philadelphia converted 3 of 7 chances (43%); Montreal managed only 2 of 7, wasting quality opportunities.

Rush hockey tilted the game decisively. The Flyers scored three goals on 16 rush attempts, a conversion rate that punishes teams lacking transition speed. Montreal couldn't match this pace.

D. Vladar recorded 21 of 22 saves with a 0.955 SV%, earning 1.96 goals above expected. He was the difference between a competitive game and a rout. J. Fowler's 17 of 20 saves (0.850 SV%) proved insufficient as Montreal generated chances but couldn't finish, underperforming their xG by 2.0—a gap no goaltender could bridge.

The Flyers escaped what underlying numbers suggested was close by doing what matters: shooting better, finishing cleaner, and getting save percentage on their side.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 16
PHI
4
MTL
1

Flyers pull away from the Canadiens

Chances 2.8 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Flyers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.79
MTL
2.96
49% of the chances52%

The board read PHI 4, MTL 1. The chances read PHI 2.8, MTL 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
+1.2
goals above expected
PHI2.79 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL2.96 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canadiens left 2.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 19:00MTLA. Texier0–1
  2. P1 19:39PHIC. Grundstrom1–1
  3. P2 06:26PHIT. Zegras2–1
  4. P2 19:10PHIB. Brink3–1
  5. P3 18:25PHIT. KonecnyEN4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
29 shots
4
Final
73 shots
MTL
44 shots
1
PHI attackMTL attack
PHI MTL Goal
29
shots · 4 in
44
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIMTL
3 / 7
1.79 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.37 xG
1 / 7
0.68 xG
Medium
1 / 21
2.09 xG
0 / 25
0.32 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.50 xG

The Flyers buried 3 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Vladar
+2.0
PHI · 21/22
C
J. Fowler
−0.2
MTL · 17/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers pull away from the Canadiens

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 9–6
  1. 19:00MTLA. Texier(J. Evans, J. Anderson)0–1
  2. 19:39PHIC. Grundstrom(O. Tippett, S. Couturier)1–1
2ndshots 9–4
  1. 06:26PHIT. Zegras(T. Konecny, E. Andrae)2–1
  2. 19:10PHIB. Brink(M. Michkov)3–1
3rdshots 3–12
  1. 18:25PHIT. Konecnyempty net(C. Dvorak, S. Couturier)4–1

score reads PHI–MTL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.79
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.085
PHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
40.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.79Expected goals2.96
MTL 52% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal22
7High-danger chances2
39All attempts (Corsi)57
Adjusted for score: PHI 37% · MTL 63%
Faceoffs · MTL won47%off43%neu16%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI3 / 7 · 1.79 xG
MTL0 / 2 · 0.37 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI1 / 7 · 0.68 xG
MTL1 / 21 · 2.09 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI0 / 25 · 0.32 xG
MTL0 / 34 · 0.50 xG

PHI went 3-for-7 from high danger on 1.79 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
4 G · 2.79 xG · +1.2
MTL
1 G · 2.96 xG · -2.0
012345

PHI finished +1.2 against expected, MTL -2.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
SNAP4/19
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/1
WRIST0/3
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/10
MTL
SNAP1/28
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/7
WRIST0/2
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/13
PHI
MTL
Off the rush
3 G on 16
1.41 xG
1 G on 30
2.35 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.71 xG
0 G on 2
0.29 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PHI went 4-for-19, MTL 1-for-28. 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
D. Vladar
PHI · 21/22 · .955
+2.0
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium1/212.1+1.1
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

J. Fowler
MTL · 17/20 · .850
-0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/71.8-1.2
Medium1/70.7-0.3
Low0/250.3+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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
29 shots
4
Final
73 shots
MTL
44 shots
1
PHI attackMTL attack
PHI MTL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, MTL 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
S. Couturier
#14 · C · PHI
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 19:18 on ice · +2
T. Konecny
#11 · R · PHI
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:50 on ice · +1
E. Andrae
#36 · D · PHI
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 18:13 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:32 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 2.4–2.4 game with the Flyers at exactly 50% win probability. This matchup has no edge.

Philadelphia owns the underlying play at 5v5, posting a 51.0% expected goals share to Montreal's 48.0%. That's a real advantage, and it should matter. But the Canadiens are running hot—a 1.018 PDO this season suggests they're banking more goals per shot than process alone explains. Expect some regression, though probably not tonight.

Montreal's underlying defense is tighter than their goal differential suggests. They sit -5 over their last ten, yet they're at 49.0% Corsi (basically even), hinting at a team about to trend toward its underlying numbers. The Flyers' 48.0% Corsi is softer than their expected goals, revealing execution advantage over territorial control.

The wild card is goaltending. J. Dobes is on a back-to-back, meaning either a backup start or a tired starter. Either scenario weakens Montreal's margin. If Philadelphia sustains 51.0% xG%, they'll press the offensive zone.

Owen Tippett leads the Flyers at 0.88 xG/60 with 19 goals and 18 assists. His 12.1% shooting rate suggests improvement over league average. Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 21 assists, 11.2% shooting) is the secondary engine. Dvorak's efficiency is the barometer—sustain it, and the Flyers stay dangerous.

Montreal counters with Cole Caufield at 0.97 xG/60, 33 goals, and 16 assists. His 20.0% shooting rate is unsustainable and will normalize downward, dulling Montreal's goal-scoring when it does. Oliver Kapanen (0.83 xG/60, 19 goals, 12 assists, 4 high-danger goals) shows real offensive instinct. Four high-danger goals in 19 total suggests he's earning his looks, not just shooting into empty air.

The Flyers hold advantages in expected goals and goaltending depth. The Canadiens hold a PDO buffer that's kept them afloat longer than their underlying numbers merit. Neither team has a decisive edge in process. Neither goalie can steal the game outright. The Corsi numbers suggest Montreal has marginal territorial control, but the xG numbers say that doesn't translate into actual shot quality.

This is the definition of a flip: two teams where the stats don't resolve into a winner. The Flyers are marginally better at 5v5. The Canadiens have margin for error built into their hot shooting. It evens out.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 50%
50%
PHI
Model favorite
50%
50%
PHI50MTL

PHI by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.4–2.4 MTL; 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 →MTL
51.0%48.0%
48.0%49.0%
2.262.41
2.202.62
1.962.24
1.821.96
1.0081.018

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.008 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PHI
5-2-3
+3 GD · 2d rest
MTL
5-4-1
-5 GD · 1d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
MTL 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%.
Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • J. Dobes is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Canadiens are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
2 days rest.938 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MTL
Expected in goal
J. Dobes
back-to-back.964 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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.

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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page