Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
Breakdown · TOR at PHI

Maple Leafs steal one from the Flyers against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.78–3.95 and won anyway.

TOR 2 · PHI 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:48 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

Toronto won 2-1 in overtime despite ceding 59% of expected goals to Philadelphia. The Flyers created the better chances and still lost—a textbook heist.

The gap was stark in shot quality. Philadelphia generated 3.95 xG to Toronto's 2.78, yet ended up chasing the scoreboard. At 5v5, the Flyers controlled the possession battle decisively. They took 23 shots and allowed 23, but their distribution was cleaner.

Where the Flyers faltered: execution. They had nine high-danger chances and converted zero. Toronto had one HD look and needed nothing else. That asymmetry—dominance in volume but failure in finishing—is what separates a night of control from a night of points.

D. Hildeby (TOR) saved 3.0 goals above expected, turning the game into something Philadelphia never deserved to lose. He stopped 22 of 23 shots at 0.957 SV%, keeping the Flyers out when they pressed hardest. Every high-danger chance looked mortal until his glove or pads got in the way.

Philadelphia's issue wasn't process—it was precision. D. Vladar (PHI) faced impossible odds: 21 stops on 23 shots, 0.913 SV%, underperforming xG by 2.95. His defense generated looks; he just couldn't execute on the margin that mattered.

Easton Cowan ended it at 02:48 of overtime with a wrist shot from the high slot—a kill-shot on a night when Toronto had no business winning.

Three Stars

  • #55 R. Ristolainen (PHI) — 1A in 23:31
  • #22 C. Dvorak (PHI) — 1A in 21:26
  • #91 J. Tavares (TOR) — 1A in 17:54
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 8
TOR
2
PHI
1

Maple Leafs steal one from the Flyers against the run of play

Chances 2.8 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
2.78
PHI
3.95
41% of the chances59%

The board read TOR 2, PHI 1. The chances read TOR 2.8, PHI 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
−0.8
goals above expected
TOR2.78 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI3.95 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers left 3.0 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. P2 00:55PHIT. Konecny0–1
  2. P3 14:04TORS. LaughtonSH1–1
  3. OT 02:48TORE. Cowan2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
44 shots
2
Final
89 shots
PHI
45 shots
1
TOR attackPHI attack
TOR PHI Goal
44
shots · 2 in
45
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORPHI
0 / 1
0.21 xG
High danger
0 / 9
1.86 xG
1 / 16
1.81 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.50 xG
1 / 40
0.76 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.59 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 9 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Hildeby
+3.0
TOR · 22/23
B+
D. Vladar
+0.8
PHI · 21/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs steal one from the Flyers against the run of play

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 6–8no goals
    2ndshots 7–3
    1. 00:55PHIT. Konecny(C. Dvorak, R. Ristolainen)0–1
    3rdshots 9–9
    1. 14:04TORS. Laughtonshorthanded1–1
    OTshots 1–3
    1. 02:48TORE. Cowan(J. Tavares)2–1

    score reads TOR–PHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.78
    TOR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.020
    TOR puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    47.1%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.78Expected goals3.95
    PHI 59% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal23
    1High-danger chances9
    57All attempts (Corsi)64
    Adjusted for score: TOR 49% · PHI 51%
    Faceoffs · PHI won39%off20%neu32%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TOR0 / 1 · 0.21 xG
    PHI0 / 9 · 1.86 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TOR1 / 16 · 1.81 xG
    PHI1 / 15 · 1.50 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TOR1 / 40 · 0.76 xG
    PHI0 / 40 · 0.59 xG

    PHI went 0-for-9 from high danger on 1.86 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TOR
    2 G · 2.78 xG · -0.8
    PHI
    1 G · 3.95 xG · -3.0
    012345

    TOR finished -0.8 against expected, PHI -3.0.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TOR
    WRIST2/28
    SNAP0/5
    SLAP0/5
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/13
    PHI
    WRIST0/22
    SNAP1/10
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN0/5
    BACKHAND0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/19
    TOR
    PHI
    Off the rush
    2 G on 32
    2.33 xG
    1 G on 30
    2.78 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.15 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.69 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 2-for-28, PHI 0-for-22. TOR scored 2 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. Hildeby
    TOR · 22/23 · .957
    +3.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/91.9+1.9
    Medium1/151.5+0.5
    Low0/400.6+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

    D. Vladar
    PHI · 21/23 · .913
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/10.2+0.2
    Medium1/161.8+0.8
    Low1/400.8-0.2

    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

    89 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TOR
    44 shots
    2
    Final
    89 shots
    PHI
    45 shots
    1
    TOR attackPHI attack
    TOR PHI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR 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. Ristolainen
    #55 · D · PHI
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:31 on ice · -2
    C. Dvorak
    #22 · C · PHI
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:26 on ice · +1
    J. Tavares
    #91 · C · TOR
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 17:54 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Jan 8
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:47 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

    The model projects a TOR 2.2 - 2.6 PHI game with the Flyers at 56% win probability.

    Philadelphia's underlying numbers are clearly superior. The Flyers own 51.0% 5v5 xG% against Toronto's 46.0%, controlling shot quality. Corsi% confirms it: Philadelphia 48.0%, Toronto 45.0%. Both teams' PDOs—TOR 1.002, PHI 1.008—sit near league average, indicating their results track with underlying play.

    Goaltending presents dual uncertainty. D. Vladar is on a back-to-back; J. Woll is on a back-to-back. Watch for a possible backup or a fatigued starter at either end.

    Toronto's offense runs through two primary scorers. Auston Matthews (17G 13A, 1.10 xG/60, 1 HD goal, 10.6% shooting) generates volume, while John Tavares (15G 24A, 0.91 xG/60, 3 HD goals, 12.4% shooting) shows higher conversion efficiency. The gap in high-danger goals between them signals different scoring profiles.

    Philadelphia spreads its scoring load. Owen Tippett (19G 18A, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals, 12.1% shooting) leads; Christian Dvorak (12G 21A, 0.81 xG/60, 3 HD goals, 11.2% shooting) provides secondary punch. Neither generates at the per-minute rate of Matthews or Tavares, yet both maintain finishing efficiency.

    Toronto's defensive weak link is Bo Groulx. Christian Dvorak represents Philadelphia's back-end vulnerability, though his offensive value complicates the matchup.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PHI 56%
    56%
    PHI
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    TOR50PHI

    PHI by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.2–2.6 PHI; 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
    TOR← edge
    edge →PHI
    46.0%51.0%
    45.0%48.0%
    2.242.26
    2.672.20
    2.091.96
    2.521.82
    1.0021.008

    PHI holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 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
    TOR
    5-3-2
    +1 GD · 1d rest
    PHI
    6-3-1
    +7 GD · 1d rest
    1.002
    TOR 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 46.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    • D. Vladar is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • J. Woll is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    TOR
    Expected in goal
    J. Woll
    back-to-back.969 last start
    Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 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
    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.

    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
    TOR
    Auston Matthews17G 13A
    1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.6% sh
    John Tavares15G 24A
    0.91 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.4% 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