Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · PHI at BUF

Sabres hold off the Flyers

FinalThu, Dec 18

PHIPhiladelphia Flyers3 BUFBuffalo Sabres5

The verdict · earned

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

PHI 3 · BUF 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:56 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

Buffalo's 5–3 win masked a narrow territorial edge. The Sabres held just 51% of shot attempts (28–27), yet controlled the game where it mattered—at the net. They generated 4.32 expected goals to Philadelphia's 3.22, a 57–43 split, and high-danger chances favored them 7–3.

The difference was shot quality. Buffalo's offense created 0.080 expected goals per shot; Philadelphia generated 0.056. That efficiency advantage held up in the rush, where Buffalo scored five times on 29 chances while Philadelphia converted three of 25.

Neither team capitalized on rebounds. Buffalo created three rebound opportunities, Philadelphia six—both proved empty despite effective net-front tactics. A. Lyon saved 24 of 27 for Buffalo (0.889 SV%). S. Ersson made 23 stops for Philadelphia (0.852 SV%).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 18

PHI

BUF

Sabres hold off the Flyers

Chances 3.2 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

PHI

3.22

BUF

4.32

43% of the chances57%

The board read PHI 3, BUF 5. The chances read PHI 3.2, BUF 4.3.

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

Luck check

BUF

+0.7

goals above expected

BUF4.32 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

PHI3.22 expected · 3 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

P1 07:40BUFJ. Quinn0–1
P1 08:38PHIN. Cates1–1
P2 11:01PHIC. York2–1
P2 16:54BUFT. Thompson2–2
P2 19:30BUFN. Ostlund2–3
P3 10:20BUFJ. NorrisPP2–4
P3 14:28PHIT. Konecny3–4

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

PHI

40 shots

Final

83 shots

BUF

43 shots

PHI BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PHIBUF

0 / 3

0.61 xG

High danger

2 / 7

2.33 xG

2 / 18

2.03 xG

Medium

2 / 14

1.39 xG

1 / 36

0.58 xG

Low

1 / 33

0.60 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

S. Ersson

+0.3

PHI · 23/27

A. Lyon

+0.2

BUF · 24/27

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres hold off 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 12–4

07:40BUFJ. Quinn(M. Samuelsson, Z. Benson)0–1
08:38PHIN. Cates(B. Brink)1–1

2ndshots 10–12

11:01PHIC. York(T. Zegras, B. Brink)2–1
16:54BUFT. Thompson(R. Dahlin)2–2
19:30BUFN. Ostlund(O. Power, A. Tuch)2–3

3rdshots 5–12

10:20BUFJ. Norrispower play(Z. Benson)2–4
14:28PHIT. Konecny(E. Andrae, J. Drysdale)3–4
19:52BUFR. McLeodempty net(M. Samuelsson)3–5

score reads PHI–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.32

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.040

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

48.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.22Expected goals4.32

BUF 57% of the chance quality

27Shots on goal28

3High-danger chances7

57All attempts (Corsi)54

Adjusted for score: PHI 53% · BUF 47%

Faceoffs · BUF won50%off47%neu43%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PHI0 / 3 · 0.61 xG

BUF2 / 7 · 2.33 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PHI2 / 18 · 2.03 xG

BUF2 / 14 · 1.39 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PHI1 / 36 · 0.58 xG

BUF1 / 33 · 0.60 xG

BUF went 2-for-14 from medium danger on 1.39 expected goals — 0.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PHI

3 G · 3.22 xG · -0.2

BUF

5 G · 4.32 xG · +0.7

0123456

PHI finished -0.2 against expected, BUF +0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PHI

WRIST2/21

SNAP1/9

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/5

SLAP0/2

OTHER0/17

BUF

WRIST4/31

SNAP0/4

TIP IN1/5

BACKHAND0/1

SLAP0/2

OTHER0/11

PHI

BUF

Off the rush

3 G on 25

2.19 xG

5 G on 29

3.28 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

0.61 xG

0 G on 3

0.74 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 2-for-21, BUF 4-for-31. BUF scored 5 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

S. Ersson

PHI · 23/27 · .852

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/72.3+0.3

Medium2/141.4-0.6

Low1/330.6-0.4

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

A. Lyon

BUF · 24/27 · .889

+0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.6+0.6

Medium2/182.0+0.0

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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PHI

40 shots

Final

83 shots

BUF

43 shots

PHI BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, BUF 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

M. Samuelsson

#23 · D · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:43 on ice · +1

Z. Benson

#6 · L · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 17:11 on ice · +1

B. Brink

#10 · R · PHI

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 14:38 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 18

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:14 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 2.4 goals for Philadelphia and 2.5 for Buffalo, assigning the Sabres 52% win probability — effectively a pick'em. This matchup lacks a clear favorite.

Buffalo's recent form looks ominous: -7 goal differential over their last 10 games. Yet their underlying metrics suggest the slump is temporary. At 5v5, they rank at 50.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi%, nearly parallel to Philadelphia's 51.0% xG% and 48.0% Corsi%. The difference lies in Buffalo's 1.020 PDO, a sign they're converting at an unsustainable rate. That hot streak will cool, which makes the -7 skid less alarming.

Philadelphia starts with a rest advantage: one day since their last game, against Buffalo's three. That edge vanishes if D. Vladar starts on a back-to-back. Whether he plays tired or a backup takes over, the equation shifts.

Four forwards will determine the outcome. Owen Tippett leads Philadelphia's attack at 19 goals, generating 0.88 xG per 60 and shooting at 12.1%, a clip that suggests he's finishing chances above volume. Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 11.2% shooting) follows a similar profile: efficient but not high-volume. Buffalo counters with Jason Zucker, whose 1.07 xG per 60, 14 goals, and six high-danger conversions demand Philadelphia's full attention. Josh Doan offers secondary firepower at 1.01 xG per 60 and 15 goals, backed by 18 assists.

Both teams harbor a defensive vulnerability. Philadelphia's Dvorak and Buffalo's Jack Quinn are listed as weak links. Control of that chaos—converting turnovers into chances—determines the margin.

Buffalo's PDO is primed to regress. Philadelphia's fundamentals suggest parity. Add the Flyers' travel fatigue, and the matchup tilts toward home ice. Yet the model hedges its bet. This is as close as it gets.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 52%

52%

BUF

Model favorite

48%

52%

PHI50BUF

BUF by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.4–2.5 BUF; 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 →BUF

51.0%50.0%

48.0%49.0%

2.262.55

2.202.55

1.962.35

1.821.90

1.0081.020

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

PHI

5-2-3

+4 GD · 1d rest

BUF

5-5-0

-7 GD · 3d rest

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF 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.
The Sabres are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Sabres have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PHI

Expected in goal

D. Vladar

back-to-back.955 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.

BUF

Expected in goal

A. Lyon

3 days rest.958 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page