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

Flyers pull away from the Canucks

The verdict · earned

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

PHI 6 · VAN 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:27 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

Philadelphia won 6-3, but Vancouver's 35–33 shot advantage obscures the real disparity: the Canucks' shots lacked quality. Their xG per shot sat at 0.049; the Flyers' hit 0.072. Over the course of a game, that efficiency gap compounds—Philadelphia controlled 57% of 5v5 expected goals (4.69–3.52), leaving Vancouver's volume work hollow.

The decisive break came in high-danger territory. The Flyers converted 44% of nine high-danger chances (4-for-9), while Vancouver went 0-for-5. Philadelphia added two goals from low-danger spots and four goals on 27 rush attempts, overperforming their xG by 1.31. D. Vladar stopped all five high-danger shots he faced, anchoring Philadelphia's advantage at the point where it mattered most.

The game's critical moment arrived when Christian Dvorak's poke from the top of the circles (19:23) shifted momentum decisively in the third period. By then, Philadelphia's qualitative edge had already decided the outcome.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 30
PHI
6
VAN
3

Flyers pull away from the Canucks

Chances 4.7 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
4.69
VAN
3.52
57% of the chances43%

The board read PHI 6, VAN 3. The chances read PHI 4.7, VAN 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
+1.3
goals above expected
PHI4.69 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN3.52 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
  1. P1 03:45VAND. Kampf0–1
  2. P1 12:02PHIN. Cates1–1
  3. P2 03:40PHIC. Grundstrom2–1
  4. P2 16:20PHIT. Konecny3–1
  5. P3 01:08VAND. O'Connor3–2
  6. P3 01:34PHIB. Brink4–2
  7. P3 17:19PHIO. TippettEN5–2
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
48 shots
6
Final
104 shots
VAN
56 shots
3
PHI attackVAN attack
PHI VAN Goal
48
shots · 6 in
56
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIVAN
4 / 9
2.98 xG
High danger
0 / 5
0.98 xG
0 / 10
1.09 xG
Medium
3 / 13
1.49 xG
2 / 46
0.62 xG
Low
0 / 54
1.04 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
T. Demko
+0.7
VAN · 27/31
B
D. Vladar
+0.5
PHI · 32/35
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers pull away from the Canucks

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 5–10
  1. 03:45VAND. Kampf(D. O'Connor, M. Pettersson)0–1
  2. 12:02PHIN. Cates(M. Michkov, B. Brink)1–1
2ndshots 19–9
  1. 03:40PHIC. Grundstrom(N. Grebenkin, T. Sanheim)2–1
  2. 16:20PHIT. Konecny(J. Drysdale, T. Zegras)3–1
3rdshots 9–16
  1. 01:08VAND. O'Connor(D. Kampf)3–2
  2. 01:34PHIB. Brink(M. Michkov, N. Cates)4–2
  3. 17:19PHIO. Tippettempty net(R. Abols, R. Ristolainen)5–2
  4. 18:16VANT. Willander5–3
  5. 19:23PHIC. Dvorakempty net(T. Zegras, T. Konecny)6–3

score reads PHI–VAN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.69
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.051
PHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
47.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.69Expected goals3.52
PHI 57% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal35
9High-danger chances5
65All attempts (Corsi)72
Adjusted for score: PHI 44% · VAN 56%
Faceoffs · VAN won50%off52%neu28%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI4 / 9 · 2.98 xG
VAN0 / 5 · 0.98 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI0 / 10 · 1.09 xG
VAN3 / 13 · 1.49 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI2 / 46 · 0.62 xG
VAN0 / 54 · 1.04 xG

VAN went 3-for-13 from medium danger on 1.49 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
6 G · 4.69 xG · +1.3
VAN
3 G · 3.52 xG · -0.5
01234567

PHI finished +1.3 against expected, VAN -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST4/25
SLAP0/6
SNAP0/9
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED1/1
POKE1/1
OTHER0/17
VAN
WRIST3/36
SLAP0/8
SNAP0/0
BACKHAND0/5
TIP IN0/5
WRAP AROUND0/2
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/16
PHI
VAN
Off the rush
4 G on 27
3.00 xG
1 G on 35
2.54 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 1
0.23 xG
1 G on 4
0.59 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 4-for-25, VAN 3-for-36. PHI scored 4 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 · 32/35 · .914
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.0+1.0
Medium3/131.5-1.5
Low0/541.0+1.0

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

T. Demko
VAN · 27/31 · .871
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/93.0-1.0
Medium0/101.1+1.1
Low2/460.6-1.4

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

104 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
48 shots
6
Final
104 shots
VAN
56 shots
3
PHI attackVAN attack
PHI VAN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, VAN 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 · 3 SOG · 16:54 on ice · +2
T. Zegras
#46 · C · PHI
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:52 on ice · +2
D. Kampf
#64 · C · VAN
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 14:22 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 30
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:25 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 projection offers no clear edge here. Models have Philadelphia at 54% to win, with an expected score of 2.5–2.3 — effectively a coin flip disguised as a forecast.

Philadelphia controls the underlying play. They generate 51.0% of 5v5 expected goals to Vancouver's 44.0%, a gap that typically favors the Flyers in close contests. Their Corsi sits at 48.0%, barely ahead of the Canucks' 46.0%, but the xG advantage is the real split.

Vancouver carries downside risk via regression. A 0.974 PDO suggests the Canucks are running cold — their goaltending and shot luck have lagged what volume would predict. Positive regression is coming, which could tighten what looks like a Flyers edge.

The goaltending matchup adds uncertainty. D. Vladar starts on a back-to-back. If Vancouver runs a backup or Vladar logs a tired performance, that tilts the board toward Philadelphia. If he's sharp, the xG gap narrows.

Philadelphia's edge lives in its shot-creators. Owen Tippett carries 0.88 xG/60 with 19 goals and 18 assists, backed by two high-danger chances; his 12.1% shooting rate leaves room for positive variance. Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12G 21A, three HD goals) generates consistently but his 11.2% shooting is more sustainable.

Vancouver's best weapon is Filip Chytil, who leads the matchup in raw threat generation at 1.03 xG/60 despite just three goals. His 15.0% shooting is a red flag — either elite finish or unsustainable hot streak. Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13 goals and 11 assists, three HD goals, 11.8% shooting) rounds out the secondary attack.

The defensive matchups tilt toward Philadelphia. Christian Dvorak is Vancouver's structural weak point at the back, while Victor Mancini faces similar challenges for the Canucks. That creates space for the Flyers' top weapons, though Chytil's upside remains dangerous if he regains shooting equilibrium.

This is close because it should be close. Philadelphia's fundamentals are cleaner; Vancouver's luck is due to flip. Fifty-four percent confidence isn't conviction — it's an even game where small edges compound.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 54%
54%
PHI
Model favorite
54%
46%
PHI50VAN

PHI by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PHI 2.5–2.3 VAN; 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 →VAN
51.0%44.0%
48.0%46.0%
2.262.22
2.202.81
1.961.60
1.822.56
1.0080.974

PHI holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.974) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PHI
4-2-4
+2 GD · 1d rest
VAN
5-5-0
-4 GD · 2d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.974
VAN 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%.
  • D. Vladar 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
PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
back-to-back.889 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.

VAN
Expected in goal
T. Demko
2 days rest.889 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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
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
Keep going

Where to next