Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater

Breakdown · VAN at PHI

Flyers run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Dec 22

VANVancouver Canucks2 PHIPhiladelphia Flyers5

The verdict · earned

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

VAN 2 · PHI 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:43 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

T. Demko stopped 2.2 goals above expected, yet still lost 5–2. The gap in underlying numbers proved too wide for any goaltending to overcome.

The Flyers dominated at 5v5: 67% of expected goals (6.17–3.10), 61% of shot attempts, and far superior shot quality. Their chances averaged 0.091 expected goals per shot to Vancouver's 0.060. Philadelphia converted 3 of 34 rush attempts into goals; Vancouver converted 2 of 23.

High-danger chances ran 15–8 in Philadelphia's favor. Both teams underperformed their expected goals—the Flyers by 1.17, Vancouver by 1.10—but that math barely narrowed the gap. Philadelphia's goalie D. Vladar exceeded expectations by 1.10, but Demko's 2.17 above expected proved insufficient against such lopsided metrics.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 22

VAN

PHI

Flyers run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.1 – 6.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

VAN

3.10

PHI

6.17

33% of the chances67%

The board read VAN 2, PHI 5. The chances read VAN 3.1, PHI 6.2.

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

Luck check

PHI

−1.2

goals above expected

PHI6.17 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN3.10 expected · 2 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

P2 13:13PHIN. Grebenkin0–1
P3 05:58PHIC. Grundstrom0–2
P3 07:49PHIC. Dvorak0–3
P3 13:05VANM. Sasson1–3
P3 15:35PHIO. Tippett1–4
P3 18:49PHIM. MichkovEN1–5
P3 19:42VAND. O'Connor2–5

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

Where the shots came from

VAN

39 shots

Final

88 shots

PHI

49 shots

VAN PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

VANPHI

2 / 8

1.90 xG

High danger

4 / 15

4.25 xG

0 / 7

0.76 xG

Medium

1 / 15

1.47 xG

0 / 37

0.45 xG

Low

0 / 38

0.46 xG

The Flyers buried 4 of 15 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

T. Demko

+2.2

VAN · 34/38

B+

D. Vladar

+1.1

PHI · 23/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Flyers run the Canucks 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 5–14no goals

2ndshots 12–14

13:13PHIN. Grebenkin(E. Andrae, R. Abols)0–1

3rdshots 8–11

05:58PHIC. Grundstrom(N. Grebenkin, R. Abols)0–2
07:49PHIC. Dvorak(T. Zegras, T. Konecny)0–3
13:05VANM. Sasson(C. Garland, T. Myers)1–3
15:35PHIO. Tippett(C. York)1–4
18:49PHIM. Michkovempty net(N. Cates)1–5
19:42VAND. O'Connor(Z. Buium, E. Pettersson)2–5

score reads VAN–PHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

6.17

PHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.2

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.035

PHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

56.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.10Expected goals6.17

PHI 67% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal39

8High-danger chances15

52All attempts (Corsi)68

Adjusted for score: VAN 46% · PHI 54%

Faceoffs · PHI won50%off47%neu33%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

VAN2 / 8 · 1.90 xG

PHI4 / 15 · 4.25 xG

Medium dangermid-range

VAN0 / 7 · 0.76 xG

PHI1 / 15 · 1.47 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

VAN0 / 37 · 0.45 xG

PHI0 / 38 · 0.46 xG

VAN went 0-for-7 from medium danger on 0.76 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

VAN

2 G · 3.10 xG · -1.1

PHI

5 G · 6.17 xG · -1.2

01234567

VAN finished -1.1 against expected, PHI -1.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

VAN

SNAP1/8

WRIST1/20

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/3

DEFLECTED0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

BAT0/0

OTHER0/13

PHI

SNAP2/26

WRIST1/8

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/3

DEFLECTED0/2

WRAP AROUND0/2

BAT1/1

OTHER0/19

VAN

PHI

Off the rush

2 G on 23

2.02 xG

3 G on 34

4.15 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.47 xG

1 G on 4

0.73 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VAN went 1-for-8, PHI 2-for-26. 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

T. Demko

VAN · 34/38 · .895

+2.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger4/154.3+0.3

Medium1/151.5+0.5

Low0/380.5+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

D. Vladar

PHI · 23/25 · .920

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/81.9-0.1

Medium0/70.8+0.8

Low0/370.5+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

VAN

39 shots

Final

88 shots

PHI

49 shots

VAN PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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

R. Abols

#18 · C · PHI

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 14:07 on ice · +2

N. Grebenkin

#29 · R · PHI

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 12:16 on ice · +2

C. York

#8 · D · PHI

0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 23:00 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Dec 22

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:30 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

Philadelphia owns the underlying play. At 51.0% xG at 5v5, the Flyers significantly outpace Vancouver (44.0%), and the model weights this advantage heavily: 58% win probability for PHI, with a projected scoring band of 2.2 to 2.7 goals.

But the sharper angle is regression. Vancouver's 0.974 PDO indicates they're running cold—results are lagging their underlying chance generation. That cold streak typically breaks. Philadelphia's 1.008 PDO represents positive fortune unlikely to repeat. When both normalize, Vancouver's deficit shrinks.

The goaltending layer adds uncertainty. K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back, a situation that either means a backup takes the start or a starter plays through fatigue. Either scenario favors Philadelphia.

Vancouver's offense centers on Filip Chytil, who carries 1.03 xG/60 at a 15.0% shooting rate with 3 goals and 1 high-danger chance—a player in rhythm. Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13 goals, 11.8% shooting) pairs goal-scoring with 11 assists, indicating secondary creation.

Philadelphia counters with Owen Tippett as the primary threat: 19 goals, 0.88 xG/60, 12.1% shooting, 2 high-danger chances. Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 11.2% shooting, 3 high-danger chances) supplies secondary output alongside 21 assists, indicating both scoring and facilitation.

Possession metrics (VAN 46.0% Corsi, PHI 48.0%) show a closer battle than shot quality suggests. Philadelphia's edge in both chance-volume and conversion efficiency compounds through each matchup.

The case for the Flyers isn't that Vancouver lacks talent. It's the gap between how they're running (unlucky: 0.974 PDO) and how Philadelphia is running (lucky: 1.008 PDO)—a spread that mean-reverts. Pair that with the underlying advantage in shot generation and the goaltending variable, and the model's 58% lean becomes clear.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 58%

58%

PHI

Model favorite

42%

58%

VAN50PHI

PHI by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.2–2.7 PHI; 18% 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

VAN← edge

edge →PHI

44.0%51.0%

46.0%48.0%

2.222.26

2.812.20

1.601.96

2.561.82

0.9741.008

PHI holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 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

VAN

5-4-1

-1 GD · 1d rest

PHI

3-3-4

-2 GD · 2d rest

0.974

VAN 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 44.0%.

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

VAN

Expected in goal

K. Lankinen

back-to-back.907 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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.

PHI

Expected in goal

S. Ersson

2 days rest.852 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

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% 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