Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater

Breakdown · PHI at CHI

Flyers run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Dec 23

PHIPhiladelphia Flyers3 CHIChicago Blackhawks1

The verdict · earned

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

PHI 3 · CHI 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:49 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 Flyers won 3–1. High-danger chances told a larger story: the Flyers had nine to Chicago's two, a gap that dwarfed the scoreline.

Philadelphia controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (2.85–4.36 favoring the Flyers). They generated the higher-quality looks: 0.082 xG per shot versus Chicago's 0.053. The Blackhawks held 45% of shot attempts and ceded control in both volume and efficiency.

Chicago underperformed their xG by 1.85 goals; Philadelphia underperformed theirs by 1.36. Neither converted at their underlying rate, but the Flyers' dominance in chance creation proved decisive. Philadelphia was lethal on the rush, scoring 3 goals on 20 chances. Chicago converted zero rebound opportunities despite generating five.

S. Ersson (PHI) saved 1.85 goals above expected on 21 saves. S. Knight (CHI) posted +2.36, a showing that kept Chicago competitive in the underlying metrics. Carl Grundstrom's wrist shot from the high slot at 17:52 of the third period marked the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 23

PHI

CHI

Flyers run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.4 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

PHI

4.36

CHI

2.85

61% of the chances40%

The board read PHI 3, CHI 1. The chances read PHI 4.4, CHI 2.9.

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

Luck check

PHI

−1.4

goals above expected

PHI4.36 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI2.85 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blackhawks left 1.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 10:17PHIT. Konecny1–0
P2 11:13PHIN. CatesPP2–0
P2 18:30CHIR. Donato2–1
P3 17:52PHIC. GrundstromEN3–1

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

Where the shots came from

PHI

41 shots

Final

78 shots

CHI

37 shots

PHI CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PHICHI

3 / 9

2.51 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.69 xG

0 / 11

1.28 xG

Medium

0 / 16

1.61 xG

0 / 33

0.57 xG

Low

1 / 36

0.55 xG

The Flyers buried 3 of 9 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

S. Knight

+2.4

CHI · 23/25

S. Ersson

+1.9

PHI · 20/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Flyers run the Blackhawks 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 7–4

10:17PHIT. Konecny(T. Zegras, S. Couturier)1–0

2ndshots 9–10

11:13PHIN. Catespower play(T. Konecny, J. Drysdale)2–0
18:30CHIR. Donato(M. Grzelcyk, A. Levshunov)2–1

3rdshots 10–7

17:52PHIC. Grundstromempty net(S. Couturier, R. Ristolainen)3–1

score reads PHI–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.36

PHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.4

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.038

PHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

49.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.36Expected goals2.85

PHI 61% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal21

9High-danger chances2

53All attempts (Corsi)54

Adjusted for score: PHI 45% · CHI 55%

Faceoffs · CHI won72%off67%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PHI3 / 9 · 2.51 xG

CHI0 / 2 · 0.69 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PHI0 / 11 · 1.28 xG

CHI0 / 16 · 1.61 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PHI0 / 33 · 0.57 xG

CHI1 / 36 · 0.55 xG

CHI went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.61 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PHI

3 G · 4.36 xG · -1.4

CHI

1 G · 2.85 xG · -1.9

012345

PHI finished -1.4 against expected, CHI -1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PHI

WRIST2/23

SLAP0/3

SNAP1/7

DEFLECTED0/3

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/3

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/12

CHI

WRIST1/19

SLAP0/8

SNAP0/4

DEFLECTED0/3

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/0

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/17

PHI

CHI

Off the rush

3 G on 20

2.89 xG

1 G on 24

1.56 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5

0.41 xG

0 G on 5

0.51 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 2-for-23, CHI 1-for-19. 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

S. Ersson

PHI · 20/21 · .952

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.7+0.7

Medium0/161.6+1.6

Low1/360.6-0.5

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

S. Knight

CHI · 23/25 · .920

+2.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/92.5-0.5

Medium0/111.3+1.3

Low0/330.6+0.6

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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PHI

41 shots

Final

78 shots

CHI

37 shots

PHI CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

T. Konecny

#11 · R · PHI

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:18 on ice · +1

S. Couturier

#14 · C · PHI

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:44 on ice · +2

A. Levshunov

#55 · D · CHI

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 24:04 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 23

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:47 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 is the model's choice here. The projection has the Flyers winning 2.6 to 2.3, with a 55% win probability for the home side.

That edge comes from the underlying play. Philadelphia leads in expected goals at 51.0% to Chicago's 42.0%, a nine-point gap in the metric that best predicts shots actually taken. The Flyers also lead in Corsi percentage (48.0% vs. 46.0%), though more modestly. Philadelphia's PDO sits at 1.008 against Chicago's 0.996, suggesting the Flyers are slightly outperforming their offensive efficiency while the Blackhawks underperform theirs.

The recency picture favors Philadelphia as well. The Flyers have posted a 3-3-4 record in their last 10 games—not a perfect streak, but solid enough. Chicago has struggled: the Blackhawks show a minus-20 goal differential over the same span, a stark reminder that their underlying process has cratered recently.

For Philadelphia, the production engine turns on Owen Tippett and Christian Dvorak. Tippett carries 19 goals and 18 assists with an xG rate of 0.88 per 60 minutes and two high-danger goals; his 12.1% shooting rate suggests room for positive variance. Dvorak has 12 goals and 21 assists at 0.81 xG/60, with three high-danger goals and an 11.2% shooting rate. Both are performing at a level above their modeling would predict, which could mean regression.

Chicago's attack centers on Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard. Bertuzzi leads with 20 goals and 15 assists at 0.85 xG/60, paired with seven high-danger goals and an 18.0% shooting rate—a rate that suggests he's converted at a significantly elevated clip. Bedard has 17 goals and 27 assists at 0.82 xG/60 with five high-danger goals and 11.8% shooting, closer to league average.

The model's lean to Philadelphia is real but not overwhelming. Chicago can play this game.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 55%

55%

PHI

Model favorite

55%

45%

PHI50CHI

PHI by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PHI 2.6–2.3 CHI; 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

PHI← edge

edge →CHI

51.0%42.0%

48.0%46.0%

2.262.17

2.202.94

1.961.84

1.822.41

1.0080.996

PHI holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.996) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

PHI

3-3-4

-2 GD · 3d rest

CHI

2-7-1

-20 GD · 3d rest

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.996

CHI 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 42.0%.

Things to watch

The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Flyers are the hotter team by points pace (3-3-4 in their last 10).
The Blackhawks are underwater at -20 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PHI

Expected in goal

S. Ersson

3 days rest.852 last start

Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI

Expected in goal

A. Soderblom

3 days rest.850 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A

0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh

Connor Bedard17G 27A

0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page