Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · PHI at BUF

Sabres pull away from the Flyers

FinalWed, Jan 14

PHIPhiladelphia Flyers2 BUFBuffalo Sabres5

The verdict · earned

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

PHI 2 · BUF 5

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:43 AMxG: 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

Buffalo won 5–2, but the real story wasn't volume—it was ruthlessness. The Flyers dominated shot attempts 22–15, yet Buffalo controlled expected goals 4.01–3.04. That's not luck; it's precision.

Buffalo generated 0.103 expected goals per shot. Philadelphia managed 0.057. The Sabres didn't need volume; they knew where to shoot. On the rush, they scored 4 goals from 20 chances. The Flyers scored 2 from the same volume. Buffalo's power play was even more lethal—2 goals on 10 shots (1.08 expected goals).

U. Luukkonen's 0.909 save percentage made dominance look routine. He stopped 1.04 goals above expected. Philadelphia's goalies—S. Ersson and D. Vladar—each stopped 2.0 above expected. They played like superstars and lost anyway. That's the real metric: when elite goaltending can't prop up an inferior team.

Ryan McLeod's wrist shot from the high slot, 19:20 of the third period, became Buffalo's turning point. One shot that made the Sabres' thorough superiority inescapable.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 14

PHI

BUF

Sabres pull away from the Flyers

Chances 3.0 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

PHI

3.04

BUF

4.01

43% of the chances57%

The board read PHI 2, BUF 5. The chances read PHI 3.0, BUF 4.0.

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

Luck check

BUF

+1.0

goals above expected

BUF4.01 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

PHI3.04 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

P1 09:30BUFR. DahlinPP0–1
P1 15:13BUFM. Samuelsson0–2
P2 04:22BUFJ. Quinn0–3
P2 10:28PHIO. Tippett1–3
P2 13:51BUFR. DahlinPP1–4
P3 07:37PHIT. ZegrasPP2–4
P3 19:20BUFR. McLeodEN2–5

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

Where the shots came from

PHI

42 shots

Final

72 shots

BUF

30 shots

PHI BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PHIBUF

0 / 3

0.72 xG

High danger

1 / 5

2.01 xG

1 / 12

1.52 xG

Medium

4 / 14

1.69 xG

1 / 38

0.80 xG

Low

0 / 20

0.31 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

S. Ersson

+2.0

PHI · 6/8

D. Vladar

+2.0

PHI · 4/6

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres pull away from the Flyers

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 8–6

09:30BUFR. Dahlinpower play(J. Doan, T. Thompson)0–1
15:13BUFM. Samuelsson(N. Ostlund, J. Doan)0–2

2ndshots 8–6

04:22BUFJ. Quinn(R. McLeod, Z. Benson)0–3
10:28PHIO. Tippett(N. Cates)1–3
13:51BUFR. Dahlinpower play(J. Norris, T. Thompson)1–4

3rdshots 6–3

07:37PHIT. Zegraspower play(T. Konecny, O. Tippett)2–4
19:20BUFR. McLeodempty net(A. Tuch)2–5

score reads PHI–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.01

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.091

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

42.4%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.04Expected goals4.01

BUF 57% of the chance quality

22Shots on goal15

3High-danger chances5

53All attempts (Corsi)39

Adjusted for score: PHI 64% · BUF 36%

Faceoffs · BUF won46%off53%neu45%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PHI0 / 3 · 0.72 xG

BUF1 / 5 · 2.01 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PHI1 / 12 · 1.52 xG

BUF4 / 14 · 1.69 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PHI1 / 38 · 0.80 xG

BUF0 / 20 · 0.31 xG

BUF went 4-for-14 from medium danger on 1.69 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PHI

2 G · 3.04 xG · -1.0

BUF

5 G · 4.01 xG · +1.0

0123456

PHI finished -1.0 against expected, BUF +1.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PHI

SNAP1/9

WRIST0/19

BACKHAND0/5

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED1/1

OTHER0/11

BUF

SNAP4/20

WRIST1/4

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP0/2

TIP IN0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/9

PHI

BUF

Off the rush

2 G on 20

1.28 xG

4 G on 20

2.88 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 7

0.99 xG

0 G on 2

0.31 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-9, BUF 4-for-20. BUF 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

S. Ersson

PHI · 6/8 · .750

+2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/52.0+1.0

Medium4/141.7-2.3

Low0/200.3+0.3

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 · 4/6 · .667

+2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/52.0+1.0

Medium4/141.7-2.3

Low0/200.3+0.3

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

U. Luukkonen

BUF · 20/22 · .909

+1.0

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium1/121.5+0.5

Low1/380.8-0.2

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

72 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PHI

42 shots

Final

72 shots

BUF

30 shots

PHI BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, BUF 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. Dahlin

#26 · D · BUF

2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 23:22 on ice · -1

T. Thompson

#72 · C · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:23 on ice · -1

R. McLeod

#71 · C · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:18 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Jan 14

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:49 AMEdited 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 2.4–2.5 goal Buffalo victory with the Sabres at 52% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Buffalo is the hotter team, having gone 8-2-0 in their last ten games. The underlying shot quality between these rosters is nearly indistinguishable: Philadelphia holds 51.0% expected goals percentage while Buffalo sits at 50.0%, and the Sabres edge the Flyers in Corsi at 49.0% to 48.0%. What separates them is variance. Buffalo's 1.020 PDO runs 12 points higher than Philadelphia's 1.008—a sign that the Sabres' current efficiency is unsustainable and regression is coming.

Both C. Ellis and D. Vladar are working back-to-back games, introducing uncertainty about whether either will be rested or fatigued entering the crease.

The Flyers' offense is built on Owen Tippett, whose 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes has translated into 19 goals and 18 assists, including 2 high-danger chances at a sustainable 12.1% shooting rate. Christian Dvorak provides secondary production at 0.81 xG/60 with 12 goals, 21 assists, and 3 high-danger goals at 11.2% shooting, though he remains a defensive liability. Buffalo counters with Jason Zucker generating the group's highest expected goal rate at 1.07 xG/60—converted into 14 goals, 14 assists, and a team-high 6 high-danger goals at 15.1% shooting. Josh Doan matches Zucker's 1.01 xG/60 rate over 15 games and 18 assists, though 2 high-danger goals limit his ceiling. Jack Quinn represents Buffalo's defensive weakness.

Both teams are starved for goals in the margin: Philadelphia shows 0% high-danger and 0% rebound goal rates, while Buffalo faces identical droughts. With both rosters unable to convert in the moments that matter most and Buffalo's current pace vulnerable to regression, this matchup truly is a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 52%

52%

BUF

Model favorite

48%

52%

PHI50BUF

BUF by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.4–2.5 BUF; 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 →BUF

51.0%50.0%

48.0%49.0%

2.262.55

2.202.55

1.962.35

1.821.90

1.0081.020

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.008 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

PHI

5-4-1

-3 GD · 1d rest

BUF

8-2-0

+13 GD · 1d rest

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

C. Ellis is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
D. Vladar is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PHI

Expected in goal

D. Vladar

back-to-back.840 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.

BUF

Expected in goal

C. Ellis

back-to-back.903 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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

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

BUF

Jason Zucker14G 14A

1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh

Josh Doan15G 18A

1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page