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

Flyers pull away from the Avalanche

The verdict · earned

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

PHI 7 · COL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:20 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

Colorado held 64% of shot attempts (35–20), yet Philadelphia controlled 55% of 5v5 expected goals (4.00–3.25). The Flyers more than doubled Colorado's danger rate—0.093 xG per shot to 0.044—and scored 7 goals on 4.00 xG, a 3.00-goal overperformance.

The goaltending reflected the gap: S. Ersson (PHI) stopped 32 of 35 shots (0.914 save percentage), while M. Blackwood (COL) made 13 saves on 19 (0.684 mark), 2.00 goals worse than expected.

Both teams executed on the rush. Colorado buried 3 goals on 30 chances; Philadelphia converted 5 on 22 attempts. The Flyers dominated high-danger situations (7–3) and scored twice from low-danger spots—plays opposing goalies are supposed to stop.

Matvei Michkov's wrist shot from the top of the circles (P3, 16:53) marked the turning point, when the Flyers' efficiency widened into separation.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 23
PHI
7
COL
3

Flyers pull away from the Avalanche

Chances 4.0 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
4.00
COL
3.25
55% of the chances45%

The board read PHI 7, COL 3. The chances read PHI 4.0, COL 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
+3.0
goals above expected
PHI4.00 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
COL3.25 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers scored 3.0 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 15:02PHIO. Tippett1–0
  2. P1 18:57PHID. BarkeyPP2–0
  3. P2 07:17COLP. Kelly2–1
  4. P2 10:29COLV. Olofsson2–2
  5. P2 11:01PHIB. Brink3–2
  6. P2 12:12COLC. Makar3–3
  7. P3 00:56PHIO. Tippett4–3
+3 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
32 shots
7
Final
82 shots
COL
50 shots
3
PHI attackCOL attack
PHI COL Goal
32
shots · 7 in
50
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHICOL
2 / 7
1.98 xG
High danger
1 / 3
0.66 xG
3 / 15
1.70 xG
Medium
1 / 18
1.89 xG
2 / 21
0.33 xG
Low
1 / 53
0.70 xG

The Flyers buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
S. Ersson
+0.3
PHI · 32/35
F
M. Blackwood
−2.0
COL · 13/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers pull away from the Avalanche

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 6–17
  1. 15:02PHIO. Tippett(D. Barkey, C. York)1–0
  2. 18:57PHID. Barkeypower play(M. Michkov, O. Tippett)2–0
2ndshots 6–7
  1. 07:17COLP. Kelly(Z. Bardakov, J. Ahcan)2–1
  2. 10:29COLV. Olofsson(N. MacKinnon, M. Necas)2–2
  3. 11:01PHIB. Brink(N. Cates)3–2
  4. 12:12COLC. Makar(N. MacKinnon, M. Necas)3–3
3rdshots 8–11
  1. 00:56PHIO. Tippett(S. Couturier)4–3
  2. 02:00PHIM. Michkov(E. Andrae, G. Hathaway)5–3
  3. 10:24PHIO. Tippettshorthanded6–3
  4. 16:53PHIM. Michkovempty net(T. Konecny)7–3

score reads PHI–COL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.00
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.122
PHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
36.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.00Expected goals3.25
PHI 55% of the chance quality
20Shots on goal35
7High-danger chances3
43All attempts (Corsi)74
Adjusted for score: PHI 33% · COL 67%
Faceoffs · COL won75%off47%neu33%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI2 / 7 · 1.98 xG
COL1 / 3 · 0.66 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI3 / 15 · 1.70 xG
COL1 / 18 · 1.89 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI2 / 21 · 0.33 xG
COL1 / 53 · 0.70 xG

PHI went 2-for-21 from low danger on 0.33 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
7 G · 4.00 xG · +3.0
COL
3 G · 3.25 xG · -0.3
012345678

PHI finished +3.0 against expected, COL -0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST6/18
SNAP0/6
TIP IN1/6
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/11
COL
WRIST2/24
SNAP0/9
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND1/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/24
PHI
COL
Off the rush
5 G on 22
2.30 xG
3 G on 30
2.17 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.49 xG
0 G on 2
0.32 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 6-for-18, COL 2-for-24. PHI scored 5 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 · 32/35 · .914
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.7-0.3
Medium1/181.9+0.9
Low1/530.7-0.3

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

M. Blackwood
COL · 13/19 · .684
-2.0
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/72.0-0.0
Medium3/151.7-1.3
Low2/210.3-1.7

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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
32 shots
7
Final
82 shots
COL
50 shots
3
PHI attackCOL attack
PHI COL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, COL 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
O. Tippett
#74 · R · PHI
3 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 16:04 on ice · +1
M. Michkov
#39 · R · PHI
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 14:31 on ice · +3
N. MacKinnon
#29 · C · COL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 26:15 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Jan 23
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:19 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 2.3–2.8 COL scoreline with Colorado at 58% win probability, a lean anchored by structural advantage rather than shooting variance.

The Avalanche control possession at 57.0% expected goals share against the Flyers' 51.0%, and own the territorial battle decisively at 57.0% Corsi. Philadelphia enters wounded: -13 goal differential over the last 10 games signals dysfunction beyond random variance. That gap opens space for Colorado's elite play generation.

The catch: Colorado's 1.021 PDO is running hot against Philadelphia's 1.008, meaning the Avalanche are overdue for regression. Shooting percentage and save percentage don't stay this elevated for long. The Flyers, meanwhile, have underperformed their underlying play, so even a loss preserves the structural story.

Both teams will navigate goaltending uncertainty. S. Wedgewood and S. Ersson are both on back-to-backs, raising the specter of backup appearances or depleted starters.

On the scoresheet, Colorado's production engines hold the edge. Artturi Lehkonen leads at 1.11 xG/60 and has converted 6 high-danger chances into 18 goals and 22 assists at 14.9% shooting. Ross Colton generates at a similar 1.10 xG/60, though his finishing lags at 4.9% shooting with 7 goals, 15 assists, and 1 high-danger goal.

Philadelphia's attack offers weaker counterweight. Owen Tippett sits at 0.88 xG/60 with 19 goals and 18 assists, driven by 2 high-danger conversions at 12.1% shooting. Christian Dvorak runs 0.81 xG/60, producing 12 goals and 21 assists off 3 high-danger goals at 11.2% shooting. Neither approaches the volume or consistency of Colorado's best.

The Avalanche figure to control the majority of play and should benefit from territorial dominance—if either team avoids a backup between the pipes tonight. The Flyers' -13 spread over ten games forecasts more of the same: adequate chance generation starved of finish, buried under a better team's grip.

Colorado's PDO regresses eventually. Against Philadelphia's current form, that regress can absorb half a goal and still leave room for victory.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 58%
58%
COL
Model favorite
42%
58%
PHI50COL

COL by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score PHI 2.3–2.8 COL; 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 →COL
51.0%57.0%
48.0%57.0%
2.263.03
2.202.30
1.962.63
1.821.56
1.0081.021

COL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PHI
3-5-2
-13 GD · 1d rest
COL
5-3-2
+11 GD · 1d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.021
COL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • S. Wedgewood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • S. Ersson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Flyers are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
S. Ersson
back-to-back.815 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.

COL
Expected in goal
S. Wedgewood
back-to-back.938 last start
Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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
COL
Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
Ross Colton7G 15A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next