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

Flyers edge the Rangers in overtime

The verdict · earned

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

PHI 3 · NYR 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:36 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

Philadelphia won the scoreboard and the underlying metrics. Expected goals finished 60-40 in the Flyers' favor (3.66–2.49), a gap that shot attempts (24–24 on goal) couldn't explain — the Flyers' chances were simply higher quality, averaging 0.069 xG per shot against New York's 0.049.

High-danger looks told the same story. The Flyers generated five to New York's two, a two-and-a-half-to-one edge that proved decisive when Matvei Michkov finished at 02:10 of overtime.

Why the Flyers prevailed. Philadelphia converted rush opportunities at a lethal rate — two goals on 22 rush chances. That precision, combined with a 5-2 high-danger advantage and superior shot quality, proved insurmountable.

Where New York fell short. Shot volume (24 attempts) masked the deeper problem: the chances lacked teeth. New York generated chances in lower-danger areas — 0.049 xG per shot against Philadelphia's 0.069 — a quality gap, not a volume problem.

In goal. S. Ersson (PHI) stopped 22 of 24 (0.917 SV%), executing his role. I. Shesterkin (NYR) was genuinely excellent, saving 21 of 24 with a +0.66 xG differential, yet Philadelphia's variety and volume still punished him. That +0.66 margin was the only edge New York could construct, and it wasn't enough.

The Flyers' efficiency on rushes and their high-danger edge proved impossible to overcome. New York had the shot count; Philadelphia had the shots that mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Feb 26
PHI
3
NYR
2

Flyers edge the Rangers in overtime

Chances 3.7 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
3.66
NYR
2.49
60% of the chances41%

The board read PHI 3, NYR 2. The chances read PHI 3.7, NYR 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
−0.7
goals above expected
PHI3.66 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NYR2.49 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
  1. P1 09:56NYRS. Carrick0–1
  2. P2 01:23NYRA. Lafrenière0–2
  3. P2 10:25PHIM. MichkovPP1–2
  4. P3 00:39PHIT. Zegras2–2
  5. OT 02:10PHIM. Michkov3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
33 shots
3
Final
73 shots
NYR
40 shots
2
PHI attackNYR attack
PHI NYR Goal
33
shots · 3 in
40
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHINYR
1 / 5
1.07 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.49 xG
2 / 18
2.26 xG
Medium
0 / 12
1.39 xG
0 / 30
0.34 xG
Low
1 / 37
0.61 xG

High-danger looks: PHI 1 of 5, NYR 1 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
I. Shesterkin
+0.7
NYR · 21/24
B
S. Ersson
+0.5
PHI · 22/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers edge the Rangers in overtime

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 5–9
  1. 09:56NYRS. Carrick(T. Raddysh, W. Borgen)0–1
2ndshots 10–5
  1. 01:23NYRA. Lafrenière(W. Cuylle, V. Trocheck)0–2
  2. 10:25PHIM. Michkovpower play(N. Cates, O. Tippett)1–2
3rdshots 8–8
  1. 00:39PHIT. Zegras(T. Konecny, T. Sanheim)2–2
OTshots 1–2
  1. 02:10PHIM. Michkov(S. Couturier, N. Seeler)3–2

score reads PHI–NYR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.66
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.7
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.017
PHI puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
51.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.66Expected goals2.49
PHI 60% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal24
5High-danger chances2
53All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: PHI 53% · NYR 47%
Faceoffs · NYR won56%off59%neu75%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI1 / 5 · 1.07 xG
NYR1 / 2 · 0.49 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI2 / 18 · 2.26 xG
NYR0 / 12 · 1.39 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI0 / 30 · 0.34 xG
NYR1 / 37 · 0.61 xG

NYR went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.39 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
3 G · 3.66 xG · -0.7
NYR
2 G · 2.49 xG · -0.5
01234

PHI finished -0.7 against expected, NYR -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST2/21
SLAP0/1
SNAP1/4
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/20
NYR
WRIST2/22
SLAP0/8
SNAP0/4
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/11
PHI
NYR
Off the rush
2 G on 22
2.34 xG
1 G on 18
1.47 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.86 xG
0 G on 4
0.62 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 2-for-21, NYR 2-for-22. PHI scored 2 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 · 22/24 · .917
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.5
Medium0/121.4+1.4
Low1/370.6-0.4

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

I. Shesterkin
NYR · 21/24 · .875
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.1+0.1
Medium2/182.3+0.3
Low0/300.3+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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
33 shots
3
Final
73 shots
NYR
40 shots
2
PHI attackNYR attack
PHI NYR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, NYR 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
M. Michkov
#39 · R · PHI
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 14:02 on ice
T. Sanheim
#6 · D · PHI
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:39 on ice
V. Trocheck
#16 · C · NYR
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:36 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Feb 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:35 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 2.3-2.3 game with the Rangers at exactly 50% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The Flyers own the underlying play at 51.0% xG%, compared to 48.0% for the Rangers, but both teams are drowning in recent results. The Rangers sit -12 in goal differential over their last 10 games; the Flyers -8. What looks like an edge on paper hasn't translated to wins, suggesting both squads are caught in variance more than dominance. The Flyers arrive hotter (3-4-3 in their last 10), but that form edge is narrower than it appears.

Possession is nearly even—Corsi% sits at 48.0% for Philadelphia and 49.0% for New York—meaning neither team is forcing the other's hand. Both carry inflated PDO (PHI 1.008, NYR 1.009), a ceiling that won't hold. The gap between them is noise.

Owen Tippett is the Flyers' engine: 0.88 xG/60, 19 goals, and a 12.1% shooting rate that suggests elite finishing. Christian Dvorak provides secondary punch (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 11.2% shooting). The Rangers lean on Adam Sykora, who generates 0.91 xG/60 with a 20.0% shooting rate—only 3 goals on that volume indicates his outsized threat level. Gabe Perreault steadies New York's secondary offense (0.79 xG/60, 8 goals, 13.1% shooting).

Both teams have enough talent to win and enough flaws to lose. The metrics can't separate them. That's the only honest take: a genuine coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NYR 50%
50%
NYR
Model favorite
50%
50%
PHI50NYR

NYR by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.3–2.3 NYR; 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 →NYR
51.0%48.0%
48.0%49.0%
2.262.26
2.202.40
1.961.88
1.821.90
1.0081.009

PHI holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 1.009) says NYR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PHI
3-4-3
-8 GD · 20d rest
NYR
2-8-0
-12 GD · 20d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.009
NYR 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 48.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Flyers are the hotter team by points pace (3-4-3 in their last 10).
  • The Rangers are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
20 days rest.926 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NYR
Expected in goal
J. Quick
20 days rest.976 last start
Backup Igor Shesterkin · +21.3 GSAx this season

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
NYR
Adam Sykora3G 1A
0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
Gabe Perreault8G 11A
0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next