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

Flyers edge the Penguins in a shootout

The verdict · stolen

The Flyers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.79–3.56 and won anyway.

PHI 4 · PIT 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:00 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 dominated expected goals at 3.56–2.79, controlling 56% of the metric at 5v5—and lost anyway. The Flyers stole this one in a shootout.

The Penguins outshot Philadelphia on chances that mattered. They held 59% of shot attempts (23–16 on goal) and generated four high-danger scoring opportunities to the Flyers' three. The edge was substantial. Yet Philadelphia won 4–3 because the Flyers converted at better rates, and because their goaltender simply played better when it counted.

D. Vladar posted a 0.870 save percentage for Philadelphia, nearly three-tenths of a point better than expected. S. Skinner kept Pittsburgh in it at 0.812, but that gap—in a one-goal game—proved decisive.

The Penguins scored three goals from low-danger areas, the kind a goalie should track. The Flyers answered by being lethal on the rush: three goals from 22 rush chances, compared to Pittsburgh's two from 32 attempts. Philadelphia's efficiency from transition play was the margin.

In the shootout, Trevor Zegras's wrist shot from the slot won it for Philadelphia.

The three stars tell the story of a Penguins team that controlled the game and lost. R. Rakell notched 1G and 1A in 22:06. E. Chinakhov added 2A in 21:02. For Philadelphia, C. York contributed 1A in 30:48—offensive depth from the blue line.

Philadelphia's overperformance on expected goals was 1.21 goals. They earned it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Mar 7
PHI
4
PIT
3

Flyers edge the Penguins in a shootout

Chances 2.8 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.79
PIT
3.56
44% of the chances56%

The board read PHI 4, PIT 3. The chances read PHI 2.8, PIT 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
+1.2
goals above expected
PHI2.79 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT3.56 expected · 3 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 03:00PITT. NovakPP0–1
  2. P1 03:54PHIO. Tippett1–1
  3. P2 03:38PITR. Rakell1–2
  4. P2 04:46PHIA. Bump2–2
  5. P2 05:45PITE. Karlsson2–3
  6. P2 10:03PHID. Barkey3–3
  7. SO 00:00PHIT. ZegrasPP3–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
35 shots
4
Final
84 shots
PIT
49 shots
3
PHI attackPIT attack
PHI PIT Goal
35
shots · 4 in
49
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIPIT
1 / 4
1.03 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.64 xG
2 / 12
1.37 xG
Medium
0 / 20
2.11 xG
0 / 24
0.39 xG
Low
3 / 41
0.81 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
D. Vladar
+0.6
PHI · 20/23
C
S. Skinner
−0.2
PIT · 13/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers edge the Penguins 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 2–8
  1. 03:00PITT. Novakpower play(J. Brazeau, V. Koivunen)0–1
  2. 03:54PHIO. Tippett(T. Zegras, C. York)1–1
2ndshots 8–7
  1. 03:38PITR. Rakell(E. Chinakhov, B. Rust)1–2
  2. 04:46PHIA. Bump(N. Grebenkin)2–2
  3. 05:45PITE. Karlsson(E. Chinakhov, R. Rakell)2–3
  4. 10:03PHID. Barkey(M. Michkov, N. Cates)3–3
3rdshots 5–4no goals
    OTshots 1–4no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00PHIT. Zegraspower play3–3

      score reads PHI–PIT

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.79
      PHI chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      +1.2
      Finishing
      Goals above what those chances were worth
      1.028
      PHI puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      38.5%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.79Expected goals3.56
      PIT 56% of the chance quality
      16Shots on goal23
      4High-danger chances3
      40All attempts (Corsi)64
      Adjusted for score: PHI 39% · PIT 61%
      Faceoffs · PIT won56%off52%neu26%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      PHI1 / 4 · 1.03 xG
      PIT0 / 3 · 0.64 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      PHI2 / 12 · 1.37 xG
      PIT0 / 20 · 2.11 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      PHI0 / 24 · 0.39 xG
      PIT3 / 41 · 0.81 xG

      PIT went 3-for-41 from low danger on 0.81 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      PHI
      4 G · 2.79 xG · +1.2
      PIT
      3 G · 3.56 xG · -0.6
      012345

      PHI finished +1.2 against expected, PIT -0.6.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      PHI
      WRIST2/18
      TIP IN0/5
      SLAP0/6
      BACKHAND1/3
      SNAP0/1
      OTHER0/7
      PIT
      WRIST2/22
      TIP IN0/12
      SLAP1/4
      BACKHAND0/4
      SNAP0/4
      OTHER0/18
      PHI
      PIT
      Off the rush
      3 G on 22
      2.29 xG
      2 G on 32
      2.66 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 3
      0.31 xG
      0 G on 2
      0.35 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 2-for-18, PIT 2-for-22. 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
      D. Vladar
      PHI · 20/23 · .870
      +0.6
      saved above expected
      B
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.6+0.6
      Medium0/202.1+2.1
      Low3/410.8-2.2

      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 · 13/16 · .812
      -0.2
      saved above expected
      C
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/41.0+0.0
      Medium2/121.4-0.6
      Low0/240.4+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

      84 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      PHI
      35 shots
      4
      Final
      84 shots
      PIT
      49 shots
      3
      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
      R. Rakell
      #67 · R · PIT
      1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:06 on ice · +2
      E. Chinakhov
      #59 · R · PIT
      0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 21:02 on ice · +1
      C. York
      #8 · D · PHI
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 30:48 on ice · +2
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Mar 7
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:59 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 2.4 to 2.5 goal game with Pittsburgh at 53% win probability—essentially a pick'em. The numbers bear this out.

      Both teams generated 51.0% expected goals percentage at 5v5 this season. That's an identical offensive and defensive resume. Pittsburgh's advantage lives in possession: 50.0% Corsi to 48.0%. But that margin is thin enough that variance erases it in a single game.

      Philadelphia's problem isn't quality; it's execution. They carry a -6 goal differential over their last 10 games while maintaining a 51.0% xG%. Translation: they're generating opportunities at the right rate but converting them below expectation. That kind of underperformance tends to create momentum risk.

      Goaltending adds uncertainty. A. Silovs and D. Vladar are both on back-to-backs, so either could operate on fumes or trigger a backup start. Fatigue at the position in a tight game is rarely academic.

      On offense, Owen Tippett is Philadelphia's engine. He's producing 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes with 19 goals at 12.1% shooting, including 2 high-danger conversions. Christian Dvorak provides secondary depth at 0.81 xG/60 and 12 goals, though he doubles as a defensive liability.

      Pittsburgh counters with Rickard Rakell at 1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, and 3 high-danger goals at the same 12.1% shooting rate. Filip Hallander was generating chances at 1.28 xG/60 but is likely unavailable—recalled from AHL conditioning for further evaluation, suggesting injury.

      Both teams have gone silent in finish quality. Neither team has cashed high-danger or rebound opportunities (0% each), meaning both leak secondary chances when opponents forecheck or cycle the puck. Caleb Jones operates as Pittsburgh's defensive weak point; Christian Dvorak fills that role for Philadelphia.

      The PDO split—1.008 to 1.012—is negligible. Luck explains almost nothing here.

      This is genuine coin-flip hockey. Pittsburgh holds a structural edge, but goaltending variance, injury absence, and the inability of either team to finish off secondary looks are enough to tip it either direction in a single game.

      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
      4-4-2
      -6 GD · 1d rest
      PIT
      5-3-2
      +8 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.
      • D. Vladar is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Flyers are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      PHI
      Expected in goal
      D. Vladar
      back-to-back.909 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.

      PIT
      Expected in goal
      A. Silovs
      back-to-back.840 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