Motion-blurred skater in a gold and black sweater

Breakdown · PHI at BOS

Bruins pull away from the Flyers

FinalThu, Jan 29

PHIPhiladelphia Flyers3 BOSBoston Bruins6

The verdict · stolen

The Bruins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.81–3.37 and won anyway.

PHI 3 · BOS 6

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:58 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

The Bruins defeated the Flyers 6-3 on the back of elite goaltending in a game where the scoreboard lied about which team was better. Boston controlled only 41% of expected goals at 5v5, a 59-41 disadvantage that made this a heist in reverse: the Flyers dominated the play, but the Bruins' goaltending turned the game.

J. Swayman was the difference. The Bruins netminder stopped 33 of 36 shots for a 0.917 save percentage, finishing 1.81 goals above expected. S. Ersson conceded 2.41 goals above expected on a 0.750 save percentage (15 of 20 stops), while D. Vladar (6 of 6, +0.78) was perfect in relief.

The Flyers created the better chances. They generated 11 high-danger scoring opportunities to Boston's 4, and their overall xG advantage (4.81 to 3.37) reflected consistent pressure—59% of the slot action was theirs. But Boston was ruthless when it mattered. The Bruins converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances for 50% efficiency and scored 5 times on 21 rush attempts, turning transition moments into goals.

Matvei Michkov's wrist shot from the doorstep midway through the third period cut the deficit, but by then Boston had already run away. F. Minten (1G, 2A in 15:00) and C. Mittelstadt (1G, 2A in 14:54) led the charge, while A. Peeke's 2 assists in 20:03 reflected Boston's dominance despite the underlying metrics.

This game belonged to whoever possessed the net. Swayman made sure it was the Bruins.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 29

PHI

BOS

Bruins pull away from the Flyers

Chances 4.8 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flyers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

PHI

4.81

BOS

3.37

59% of the chances41%

The board read PHI 3, BOS 6. The chances read PHI 4.8, BOS 3.4.

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

Luck check

BOS

+2.6

goals above expected

BOS3.37 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

PHI4.81 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Bruins scored 2.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 09:49BOSV. Arvidsson0–1
P1 10:30BOSP. Zacha0–2
P2 02:27BOSF. Minten0–3
P2 03:16PHIT. Konecny1–3
P2 16:12BOSC. Mittelstadt1–4
P2 18:40BOST. Jeannot1–5
P2 19:05PHIN. Grebenkin2–5

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

PHI

47 shots

Final

85 shots

BOS

38 shots

PHI BOS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PHIBOS

2 / 11

2.33 xG

High danger

2 / 4

0.94 xG

1 / 16

2.01 xG

Medium

3 / 16

1.95 xG

0 / 30

0.47 xG

Low

1 / 35

0.48 xG

The Bruins buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A+

D. Vladar

+3.4

PHI · 6/6

J. Swayman

+1.8

BOS · 33/36

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Bruins 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 9–10

09:49BOSV. Arvidsson(C. Mittelstadt, F. Minten)0–1
10:30BOSP. Zacha(M. Geekie, J. Aspirot)0–2

2ndshots 12–10

02:27BOSF. Minten(C. Mittelstadt)0–3
03:16PHIT. Konecny(C. Dvorak)1–3
16:12BOSC. Mittelstadt(A. Peeke, F. Minten)1–4
18:40BOST. Jeannot(A. Peeke, S. Kuraly)1–5
19:05PHIN. Grebenkin(T. Konecny)2–5

3rdshots 15–7

16:30BOSM. Khusnutdinovempty net(C. McAvoy, J. Aspirot)2–6
18:19PHIM. Michkovpower play(D. Barkey, O. Tippett)3–6

score reads PHI–BOS

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.37

BOS chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.056

BOS puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

49.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.81Expected goals3.37

PHI 59% of the chance quality

36Shots on goal27

11High-danger chances4

57All attempts (Corsi)55

Adjusted for score: PHI 57% · BOS 43%

Faceoffs · BOS won40%off54%neu68%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PHI2 / 11 · 2.33 xG

BOS2 / 4 · 0.94 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PHI1 / 16 · 2.01 xG

BOS3 / 16 · 1.95 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PHI0 / 30 · 0.47 xG

BOS1 / 35 · 0.48 xG

BOS went 2-for-4 from high danger on 0.94 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PHI

3 G · 4.81 xG · -1.8

BOS

6 G · 3.37 xG · +2.6

01234567

PHI finished -1.8 against expected, BOS +2.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PHI

SNAP1/36

WRIST2/4

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP0/2

TIP IN0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/10

BOS

SNAP1/13

WRIST3/9

BACKHAND1/7

SLAP0/4

TIP IN1/4

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/17

PHI

BOS

Off the rush

0 G on 29

2.78 xG

5 G on 21

2.06 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 7

1.30 xG

1 G on 5

0.62 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-36, BOS 1-for-13. BOS 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 · 15/20 · .750

-1.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/40.9-1.1

Medium3/161.9-1.1

Low1/350.5-0.5

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

D. Vladar

PHI · 6/6 · 1.000

+3.4

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/40.9-1.1

Medium3/161.9-1.1

Low1/350.5-0.5

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

J. Swayman

BOS · 33/36 · .917

+1.8

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/112.3+0.3

Medium1/162.0+1.0

Low0/300.5+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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PHI

47 shots

Final

85 shots

BOS

38 shots

PHI BOS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, BOS 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

F. Minten

#93 · C · BOS

1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 15:00 on ice · +3

C. Mittelstadt

#11 · C · BOS

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 14:54 on ice · +3

A. Peeke

#26 · D · BOS

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:03 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 29

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:55 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 calls this a toss-up: Philadelphia at 2.5 goals per game, Boston at 2.4, Flyers favored at 51% win probability. That's as close to even odds as modern hockey gets.

Boston's trajectory suggests otherwise. The Bruins are 8-1-1 over their last 10 games and rolling, while Philadelphia sits at minus-19 goal differential in that same stretch. That form advantage, though, doesn't tell the whole story.

The underlying data favors the Flyers. At 5v5, Philadelphia generates 51.0% expected goals compared to Boston's 47.0%—the fundamental play belongs to Philadelphia. Corsi tells a subtler tale: Boston edges Philadelphia 49.0% to 48.0%, a gap so thin it rounds to irrelevant.

Here's where things get messy. Boston's PDO sits at 1.023—a mark indicating they're running hot and some regression is coming. Philadelphia's 1.008 PDO suggests they're closer to sustainable performance. The Bruins are banking on luck, and luck doesn't travel well.

J. Swayman is on a back-to-back, a wild card in Boston's favor if they start a backup or a liability if Swayman plays tired.

Philadelphia's Owen Tippett is the most dangerous weapon on the ice. At 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes, he's generated 19 goals with 18 assists and owns 2 high-danger goals on a 12.1% shooting rate. Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 21 assists, 3 high-danger goals) gives the Flyers a secondary threat operating at 11.2% shooting.

Boston counters with Viktor Arvidsson, whose 1.04 xG/60 leads all forwards in play here. Arvidsson has 18 goals, 24 assists, and 2 high-danger goals on 13.0% shooting—elite, translatable production. Tanner Jeannot (0.75 xG/60, 6 goals, 14 assists, 2 high-danger goals) operates at 8.3% shooting.

The Flyers own superior even-strength play and a goaltender advantage if Swayman doesn't start. The Bruins own superior form and a player in Arvidsson who can single-handedly shift momentum. The model's coin flip reads correctly.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 51%

51%

PHI

Model favorite

51%

49%

PHI50BOS

PHI by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.5–2.4 BOS; 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 →BOS

51.0%47.0%

48.0%49.0%

2.262.39

2.202.67

1.962.22

1.821.82

1.0081.023

BOS holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 1.023) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

PHI

2-6-2

-19 GD · 2d rest

BOS

8-1-1

+15 GD · 1d rest

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.023

BOS 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 47.0%.

Regression watch

The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
J. Swayman is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Bruins are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).
The Flyers are underwater at -19 goal differential over their last 10.
The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PHI

Expected in goal

S. Ersson

2 days rest.826 last start

Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BOS

Expected in goal

J. Swayman

back-to-back.933 last start

Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 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

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

BOS

Viktor Arvidsson18G 24A

1.04 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh

Tanner Jeannot6G 14A

0.75 xG/60 · 2 HD · 8.3% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page