Backcheck
Recap · TBL at PHI

Lightning pull away from the Flyers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 12:10 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
TBL
Tampa Bay Lightning
7
Home
PHI
Philadelphia Flyers
2
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.57Expected goals2.58
58% share for the better side
23Shot attempts (SOG)20
8High-danger chances5
52Corsi (all attempts)39
Score-adjusted: 52% / 48%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Lightning won 7-2, but the scoreline misleads. They controlled 58% of expected goals (3.57–2.58), yet still overperformed their xG by 3.43 goals—a gap that reveals not Tampa's brilliance but Philadelphia's breakdown: S. Ersson surrendered 3.43 more goals than expected.

The Flyers held 46% of shot attempts (20–23 on goal) and generated five high-danger chances to Tampa's eight. They converted zero. Meanwhile, the Lightning punished inefficiency: 4 of 8 high-danger attempts found the net (50%), and they added 6 goals on 24 rush chances. Ersson allowed 3.43 more goals than expected—not unlucky, but decisively outmatched. A. Vasilevskiy, by contrast, posted a 0.900 SV% (+0.58 vs expected), stopping 18 of 20 shots, including all 5 high-danger chances.

The Flyers' collapse centered on high-danger futility: 0 for 5 on their best chances. Tampa's clinical conversion—led by N. Kucherov's 2G, 2A in 14:24 and B. Point's 3A in 13:35—created the illusion of a rout. Philadelphia fought for parity in volume (46% shot attempts) but surrendered quality. The Lightning's 4 rebound opportunities yielded 1 goal; Philadelphia crashed for 3 rebounds and left all empty.

C. D'Astous registered 2A in 20:28, anchoring depth that forced Philly into reactive hockey. Once the Lightning seized momentum on the rush, the Flyers' discipline fractured. The 7-2 final was no blowout by xG—Ersson's performance made it one.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL4 / 8 · 1.88 xG
PHI0 / 5 · 1.16 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL2 / 12 · 1.23 xG
PHI1 / 8 · 0.84 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 32 · 0.47 xG
PHI1 / 26 · 0.58 xG

TBL went 4-for-8 from high danger on 1.88 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
7 G · 3.57 xG · +3.4
PHI
2 G · 2.58 xG · -0.6
012345678
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
A. VasilevskiyTBL
+0.6
S. ErssonPHI
-3.4

TBL finished +3.4 against expected, PHI -0.6 — S. Ersson (PHI) allowed 3.4 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
SNAP7/23
WRIST0/2
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/4
BAT0/1
OTHER0/15
PHI
SNAP0/8
WRIST0/13
TIP IN1/5
SLAP1/5
BACKHAND0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/8
TBL
PHI
Off the rush
6 G on 24 · 2.88 xG
1 G on 22 · 1.68 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4 · 0.58 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.66 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 7-for-23, PHI 0-for-8. TBL scored 6 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
2 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 14:24 TOI · +4
B. Point
#21 · C · TBL
0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 13:35 TOI · +4
C. D'Astous
#51 · D · TBL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:28 TOI · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • S. Ersson (PHI) gave up 3.4 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • PHI couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • TBL was clinical in the high-danger zone — 4/8 on HD chances (50%).
  • TBL was lethal off the rush — 6 goals on 24 rush chances.
  • PHI created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • TBL created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • TBL outperformed their expected goals by 3.4 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
  • A. Vasilevskiy was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · TBL at PHI · 7:00 PM ET

Lightning at Flyers: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 12:08 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
TBL
Model favorite
51%
49%
TBL50PHI

TBL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.42.4 PHI; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

TBL← edge
edge →PHI
54.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
53.0%Corsi%48.0%
2.67xGF / 602.26
2.28xGA / 602.20
2.38Goals for / gm1.96
1.85Goals against / gm1.82
1.019PDO — luck, not skill1.008

TBL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.019 vs 1.008) says TBL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.4–2.4 game with the Lightning at 51% win probability—a genuine toss-up.

Tampa Bay enters this matchup as the hotter team, posting an 8-2-0 record over their last ten games. Their underlying play supports that form: at 5v5, they control 54.0% of expected goals and drive 53.0% of Corsi, suggesting territorial dominance. But their 1.019 PDO signals luck, not excellence. Expect some regression.

Philadelphia faces a rest disadvantage: the Flyers skate tonight on just one day off, while Tampa Bay has three. That gap matters. D. Vladar, meanwhile, works on a back-to-back—a subplot worth monitoring for the Lightning's net.

Brandon Hagel forms the spine of Tampa's attack at 1.10 xG per 60, with 23 goals and a sharp 15.8% shooting rate. He's converted two high-danger chances into goals. Anthony Cirelli complements him at 0.95 xG/60, with 15 goals, an elite 17.0% shooting rate, and five high-danger tallies.

Philadelphia counters with Owen Tippett, who carries 0.88 xG/60 and 19 goals at 12.1% shooting, and Christian Dvorak, working at 0.81 xG/60 with 12 goals at 11.2% shooting. Tippett has two high-danger goals; Dvorak has bagged three.

Victor Hedman represents Tampa's defensive vulnerability, while Dvorak marks a softer spot on the Flyers' back end. In a game this tight, those weak links may determine the outcome.

This is pick'em territory by every metric—the model got it right.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

TBL
Brandon Hagel23G 26A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 15.8% sh
Anthony Cirelli15G 18A
0.95 xG/60 · 5 HD · 17.0% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters