Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
← Mon, Mar 2 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at TOR

Flyers edge the Maple Leafs in a shootout

Final / OTMon, Mar 2
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers3TORToronto Maple Leafs2
The verdict · stolen

The Flyers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.48–3.08 and won anyway.

PHI 3 · TOR 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:12 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 stole one. The Flyers won 3-2 in a shootout despite losing the expected-goals battle 3.08–2.48. The Maple Leafs controlled 55% of the xG at 5v5—yet Toronto left empty-handed.

This was pure variance. The Maple Leafs dominated shot attempts 31–25 and generated superior chances. They underperformed their expected goals by 1.08, while high-danger opportunities split evenly at 3–3. Better offense, worse result.

D. Vladar made the difference. The Flyers goaltender stopped 29 of 31 shots (0.935 SV%), outperforming expectation by 1.08 goals. His counterpart, A. Stolarz, recorded a 0.920 SV% on 23 saves. When Toronto's xG dominance should have overwhelmed Philadelphia's defense, Vladar refused to break.

The turning point: Trevor Zegras's wrist shot from the high slot in the shootout, the strike that decided it.

Philadelphia's attack was distributed. N. Cates (1G, 1A in 19:56) and C. Dvorak (1G in 23:34) both converted. For Toronto, W. Nylander's goal in 25:39 couldn't compensate. The Maple Leafs outplayed the Flyers in structure and volume. They were simply outperformed in the moments that mattered most—the ones Vladar protected.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Mar 2
PHI
3
TOR
2

Flyers edge the Maple Leafs in a shootout

Chances 2.5 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.48
TOR
3.08
45% of the chances55%

The board read PHI 3, TOR 2. The chances read PHI 2.5, TOR 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
+0.5
goals above expected
PHI2.48 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR3.08 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 15:22TORD. Joshua0–1
  2. P1 18:38PHIC. DvorakPP1–1
  3. P3 14:42PHIN. Cates2–1
  4. P3 17:30TORW. NylanderPP2–2
  5. SO 00:00TORW. NylanderPP2–2
  6. SO 00:00PHIM. MichkovPP2–2
  7. SO 00:00PHIT. ZegrasPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
37 shots
4
Final
84 shots
TOR
47 shots
3
PHI attackTOR attack
PHI TOR Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

37
shots · 4 in
47
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHITOR
0 / 3
0.64 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.85 xG
2 / 12
1.35 xG
Medium
2 / 14
1.48 xG
0 / 38
0.50 xG
Low
0 / 41
0.75 xG

The Maple Leafs went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Vladar
+1.1
PHI · 29/31
B
A. Stolarz
+0.5
TOR · 23/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers edge the Maple Leafs in a shootout

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 14–7
  1. 15:22TORD. Joshua(M. Maccelli)0–1
  2. 18:38PHIC. Dvorakpower play(N. Cates, D. Barkey)1–1
2ndshots 4–11no goals
    3rdshots 5–9
    1. 14:42PHIN. Cates(B. Brink)2–1
    2. 17:30TORW. Nylanderpower play(J. Tavares, M. Knies)2–2
    OTshots 2–4no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00TORW. Nylanderpower play2–2
      2. 00:00PHIM. Michkovpower play2–2
      3. 00:00PHIT. Zegraspower play2–2

      score reads PHI–TOR

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.48
      PHI chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      +0.5
      Finishing
      Goals above what those chances were worth
      1.003
      PHI puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      47.7%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.48Expected goals3.08
      TOR 55% of the chance quality
      25Shots on goal31
      3High-danger chances3
      53All attempts (Corsi)58
      Adjusted for score: PHI 48% · TOR 52%
      Faceoffs · TOR won71%off60%neu48%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      PHI0 / 3 · 0.64 xG
      TOR0 / 3 · 0.85 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      PHI2 / 12 · 1.35 xG
      TOR2 / 14 · 1.48 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      PHI0 / 38 · 0.50 xG
      TOR0 / 41 · 0.75 xG

      TOR went 0-for-3 from high danger on 0.85 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      PHI
      3 G · 2.48 xG · +0.5
      TOR
      2 G · 3.08 xG · -1.1
      01234

      PHI finished +0.5 against expected, TOR -1.1.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      PHI
      WRIST2/21
      SNAP0/3
      SLAP0/6
      TIP IN0/1
      BACKHAND0/2
      DEFLECTED0/1
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      OTHER0/18
      TOR
      WRIST1/29
      SNAP1/9
      SLAP0/4
      TIP IN0/2
      BACKHAND0/0
      DEFLECTED0/0
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      OTHER0/14
      PHI
      TOR
      Off the rush
      0 G on 25
      1.89 xG
      1 G on 30
      2.30 xG
      Off rebounds
      1 G on 2
      0.40 xG
      0 G on 2
      0.30 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 2-for-21, TOR 1-for-29.

      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
      D. Vladar
      PHI · 29/31 · .935
      +1.1
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.8+0.8
      Medium2/141.5-0.5
      Low0/410.8+0.8

      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. Stolarz
      TOR · 23/25 · .920
      +0.5
      saved above expected
      B
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.6+0.6
      Medium2/121.4-0.7
      Low0/380.5+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

      84 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      PHI
      37 shots
      4
      Final
      84 shots
      TOR
      47 shots
      3
      PHI attackTOR attack
      PHI TOR Goal

      Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

      Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, TOR 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
      N. Cates
      #27 · L · PHI
      1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:56 on ice · +1
      W. Nylander
      #88 · R · TOR
      1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 25:39 on ice · -1
      C. Dvorak
      #22 · C · PHI
      1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 23:34 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Mon, Mar 2
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:28 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 2.5 - 2.3 TOR game with the Flyers at 52% win probability — this is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

      Philadelphia has seized momentum with a 4-4-2 record over their last 10 games. Toronto, meanwhile, tells a different story: they're -15 in goal differential over the same stretch, suggesting structural vulnerability despite their roster talent.

      The Flyers own the underlying play. At 5v5, they're generating 51.0% of expected goals compared to Toronto's 46.0%, and they lead in Corsi% at 48.0% to 45.0%. Both teams are posting steady PDO numbers (PHI 1.008, TOR 1.002), so neither squad is riding unsustainable finishing luck.

      The goaltending dimension adds another layer. J. Woll is on a back-to-back, which leaves Toronto vulnerable to either a tired starter or a mid-game backup pull.

      On Philadelphia's side, Owen Tippett is the engine: 0.88 xG/60, 19G 18A, and a scorching 12.1% shooting percentage. He's converted 2 high-danger goals, confirming he's finishing at the net. Christian Dvorak operates at 0.81 xG/60 with 12G 21A and 3 high-danger goals, posting an 11.2% shooting percentage — he's dangerous in close and represents Philadelphia's offensive depth, though he's also their defensive weak link.

      Toronto counters with Auston Matthews at 1.10 xG/60, the elite chance-generation rate. Yet he's posted just 17G 13A with only 1 high-danger goal converted, suggesting his shot quality is outpacing his finishing. John Tavares, the secondary engine, sits at 0.91 xG/60 with 15G 24A and 3 high-danger goals, posting a 12.4% shooting percentage. He's finishing at a higher rate than Matthews, which suggests the Leafs' conversion comes from role depth, not just top-end talent.

      Toronto's defensive weak link is Bo Groulx, an angle for the Flyers if they can sustain pressure. The Leafs have the star power to win anywhere, but Philadelphia's current form and defensive structure give them a measurable edge in this spot.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      PHI 53%
      53%
      PHI
      Model favorite
      53%
      47%
      PHI50TOR

      PHI by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PHI 2.5–2.3 TOR; 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 →TOR
      51.0%46.0%
      48.0%45.0%
      2.262.24
      2.202.67
      1.962.09
      1.822.52
      1.0081.002

      PHI holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 1.002) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      PHI
      4-4-2
      -4 GD · 2d rest
      TOR
      3-7-0
      -15 GD · 1d rest
      1.008
      PHI PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.002
      TOR 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 46.0%.
      Things to watch
      • The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
      • J. Woll is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Flyers are the hotter team by points pace (4-4-2 in their last 10).
      • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -15 goal differential over their last 10.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      PHI
      Expected in goal
      D. Vladar
      2 days rest.963 last start
      Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      TOR
      Expected in goal
      J. Woll
      back-to-back.821 last start
      Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 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
      TOR
      Auston Matthews17G 13A
      1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.6% sh
      John Tavares15G 24A
      0.91 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.4% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page