Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
Breakdown · PHI at PIT

Penguins pull away from the Flyers

The verdict · coin flip

The Penguins won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

PHI 3 · PIT 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:52 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

Pittsburgh's 6-3 win looked decisive on the scoreboard. The underlying play disagreed: expected goals split 4.71–4.96, with the Flyers holding the edge. That three-goal margin in reality versus a coin-flip in underlying metrics points to one driver—goaltending.

S. Skinner (PIT) saved 31 of 34 shots (0.912 SV%), performing well above expected. S. Ersson (PHI) stopped 11 of 14 (0.786 SV%), falling short. Penguins overperformed their xG by 1.29 goals; Flyers underperformed by 1.96. A. Kolosov entered for Philadelphia with a 13-save performance on 16 shots (0.812 SV%), but the goaltending edge belonged entirely to Pittsburgh.

Philadelphia's shot quality was legitimate—eight high-danger chances to Pittsburgh's eight. Yet the Flyers converted zero of them at the highest leverage. That drought isn't sustainable. Pittsburgh was equally prolific in transition, scoring three goals on 28 rush attempts; Philadelphia matched that tally on 31 attempts. The difference lay in precision, not possession.

The Flyers scored twice from low-danger areas, the kind of conversions that require theft in goal. Ersson and Kolosov could not steal enough moments. Matvei Michkov's wrist shot from the high slot at 17:25 of the third punctuated the shift in momentum, though Skinner's earlier play had already staked Pittsburgh to the margin.

Three stars:

  • #87 S. Crosby (PIT, 1G–1A, 18:45)
  • #52 D. Barkey (PHI, 2A, 16:15)
  • #71 E. Malkin (PIT, 2A, 15:34)
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 15
PHI
3
PIT
6

Penguins pull away from the Flyers

Chances 5.0 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Penguins took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
4.96
PIT
4.71
51% of the chances49%

The board read PHI 3, PIT 6. The chances read PHI 5.0, PIT 4.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+1.3
goals above expected
PIT4.71 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI4.96 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers left 2.0 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. P1 02:16PITJ. BrazeauPP0–1
  2. P1 12:25PITB. RustPP0–2
  3. P2 01:16PITE. Chinakhov0–3
  4. P2 02:17PHIR. Abols1–3
  5. P2 18:29PITB. Lizotte1–4
  6. P3 03:10PITS. CrosbyPP1–5
  7. P3 04:27PITC. Dewar1–6
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
56 shots
3
Final
101 shots
PIT
45 shots
6
PHI attackPIT attack
PHI PIT Goal
56
shots · 3 in
45
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIPIT
0 / 8
1.88 xG
High danger
2 / 8
2.32 xG
1 / 21
2.34 xG
Medium
3 / 18
1.88 xG
2 / 43
0.73 xG
Low
1 / 30
0.51 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Skinner
+2.0
PIT · 31/34
A
S. Ersson
+1.7
PHI · 11/14
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins 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 8–13
  1. 02:16PITJ. Brazeaupower play(B. Kindel, A. Mantha)0–1
  2. 12:25PITB. Rustpower play(K. Letang, S. Crosby)0–2
2ndshots 17–13
  1. 01:16PITE. Chinakhov(E. Malkin, T. Novak)0–3
  2. 02:17PHIR. Abols(C. York, C. Grundstrom)1–3
  3. 18:29PITB. Lizotte(N. Acciari)1–4
3rdshots 9–4
  1. 03:10PITS. Crosbypower play(E. Malkin, R. Rakell)1–5
  2. 04:27PITC. Dewar(T. Novak)1–6
  3. 10:54PHIN. Seeler(D. Barkey, N. Juulsen)2–6
  4. 17:25PHIM. Michkov(D. Barkey, S. Couturier)3–6

score reads PHI–PIT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.71
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.065
PIT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.96Expected goals4.71
PHI 51% of the chance quality
34Shots on goal30
8High-danger chances8
72All attempts (Corsi)56
Adjusted for score: PHI 63% · PIT 37%
Faceoffs · PIT won43%off60%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI0 / 8 · 1.88 xG
PIT2 / 8 · 2.32 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI1 / 21 · 2.34 xG
PIT3 / 18 · 1.88 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI2 / 43 · 0.73 xG
PIT1 / 30 · 0.51 xG

PHI went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.88 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
3 G · 4.96 xG · -2.0
PIT
6 G · 4.71 xG · +1.3
01234567

PHI finished -2.0 against expected, PIT +1.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST2/36
TIP IN1/9
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/5
SNAP0/1
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/16
PIT
WRIST4/24
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND1/7
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/5
BAT0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/11
PHI
PIT
Off the rush
3 G on 31
2.55 xG
3 G on 28
2.94 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 8
1.30 xG
1 G on 4
0.84 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 2-for-36, PIT 4-for-24. 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 · 11/14 · .786
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.3+0.3
Medium3/181.9-1.1
Low1/300.5-0.5

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

A. Kolosov
PHI · 13/16 · .812
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.3+0.3
Medium3/181.9-1.1
Low1/300.5-0.5

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. Skinner
PIT · 31/34 · .912
+2.0
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/81.9+1.9
Medium1/212.3+1.3
Low2/430.7-1.3

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

101 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
56 shots
3
Final
101 shots
PIT
45 shots
6
PHI attackPIT attack
PHI PIT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, PIT 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
S. Crosby
#87 · C · PIT
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:45 on ice · -1
D. Barkey
#52 · C · PHI
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:15 on ice · +2
E. Malkin
#71 · C · PIT
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:34 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 15
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:50 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 PHI 2.4–2.5 PIT game with the Penguins at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Both teams are trading chances at nearly identical rates. Philadelphia owns 51.0% expected goals; Pittsburgh matches that exactly. The difference appears in volume: Pittsburgh's 50.0% Corsi percentage suggests they're controlling the play slightly more, while Philadelphia's 48.0% indicates they're getting squeezed in shot attempts. Both teams' PDO figures—1.008 for PHI, 1.012 for PIT—suggest marginal luck-based variance, meaning their actual results align closely with underlying performance.

A. Silovs arrives on a back-to-back, creating uncertainty about Pittsburgh's crease. A tired starter or unexpected backup decision could shift the dynamics considerably.

Philadelphia's offensive threats center on Owen Tippett and Christian Dvorak. Tippett has generated 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes while converting at a 12.1% rate; his 19 goals and 18 assists reflect efficient scoring anchored by 2 high-danger chances. Dvorak operates at a similar efficiency—0.81 xG/60, 11.2% shooting—with a deeper assist total of 21 against 12 goals, making him a more playmaking-oriented threat. He's also Pittsburgh's defensive weak link.

Pittsburgh counters with Rickard Rakell, who drives 1.01 xG/60 and has potted 13 goals and 13 assists with 3 high-danger conversions at a 12.1% clip. Filip Hallander presented a significant matching problem with his 1.28 xG/60 leading Pittsburgh's lineup, but he remains likely out due to injury.

Both teams sit at 0% high-danger and 0% rebound-goal rates, indicating either extreme variance-constraint in how they score or a sample small enough that these haven't yet registered. Neither team has found consistent secondary scoring beyond their primary weapons. Caleb Jones represents Pittsburgh's primary defensive vulnerability.

This game hinges on whether Philadelphia can leverage Tippett and Dvorak against Pittsburgh's depth, or whether Pittsburgh's superior puck-possession metrics convert into a meaningful advantage despite goaltending uncertainty. The 53% projection in Pittsburgh's favor reflects a genuine statistical tilt, but narrow margins make it wholly contingent on execution.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 53%
53%
PIT
Model favorite
47%
53%
PHI50PIT

PIT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PHI 2.4–2.5 PIT; 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 →PIT
51.0%51.0%
48.0%50.0%
2.262.66
2.202.55
1.962.45
1.822.12
1.0081.012

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 1.012) says PIT 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 · 2d rest
PIT
6-3-1
+10 GD · 1d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • A. Silovs 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
PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
2 days rest.840 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PIT
Expected in goal
A. Silovs
back-to-back.968 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next