Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater

Breakdown · PHI at LAK

Flyers edge the Kings in a shootout

Final / OTThu, Mar 19

PHIPhiladelphia Flyers4 LAKLos Angeles Kings3

The verdict · coin flip

The Flyers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

PHI 4 · LAK 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:00 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

Philadelphia's 4-3 shootout win over Los Angeles defied the underlying numbers. Expected goals split 3.02 to the Kings, 2.94 to the Flyers. Yet the Flyers overperformed their xG by 1.06 goals, stealing a game the metrics favored L.A.

The Kings dominated volume. They held 56% of shot attempts (25–20 on goal) and 4–3 in high-danger chances. Los Angeles was particularly lethal off the rush: 2 goals on 29 chances, the kind of finishing that should close games.

Philadelphia's path to victory ran through precision. At 0.060 xG per shot, the Flyers generated higher-quality looks than the Kings' 0.043 per shot. Both teams scored twice from low-danger situations, the sort of goals born from defensive lapses.

Rebounding work separated them slightly. The Flyers created six rebound chances and converted one. The Kings created three and converted one. That volume edge, compounded across small margins, proved decisive.

In net, S. Ersson (PHI) stopped 22 of 25 (0.880 SV%). D. Kuemper (LAK) made 17 of 20 (0.850 SV%). A marginal gap through regulation; the shootout erased it.

Matvei Michkov finished it with a wrist shot from the high slot, ending a game the underlying numbers supported going either way.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Mar 19

PHI

LAK

Flyers edge the Kings in a shootout

Chances 2.9 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Flyers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

PHI

2.94

LAK

3.02

49% of the chances51%

The board read PHI 4, LAK 3. The chances read PHI 2.9, LAK 3.0.

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

Luck check

PHI

+1.1

goals above expected

PHI2.94 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK3.02 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

P1 19:31LAKQ. Byfield0–1
P2 00:26PHIT. Konecny1–1
P2 00:47LAKA. Kopitar1–2
P2 04:12PHIN. Cates2–2
P2 06:59PHIT. Sanheim3–2
P3 10:28LAKA. PanarinPP3–3
SO 00:00PHIT. ZegrasPP3–3

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

PHI

34 shots

Final

80 shots

LAK

46 shots

PHI LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

shots · 5 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PHILAK

1 / 4

0.94 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.67 xG

0 / 15

1.62 xG

Medium

1 / 14

1.56 xG

2 / 30

0.37 xG

Low

2 / 53

0.78 xG

The Kings went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

S. Ersson

+0.0

PHI · 22/25

D. Kuemper

−0.1

LAK · 17/20

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Flyers edge the Kings 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 3–6

19:31LAKQ. Byfield(T. Moore, A. Laferriere)0–1

2ndshots 11–11

00:26PHIT. Konecny(R. Ristolainen, A. Bump)1–1
00:47LAKA. Kopitar(B. Clarke, A. Panarin)1–2
04:12PHIN. Cates(M. Michkov, R. Ristolainen)2–2
06:59PHIT. Sanheim(N. Cates, M. Michkov)3–2

3rdshots 4–6

10:28LAKA. Panarinpower play(S. Laughton)3–3

OTshots 2–2no goals

00:00PHIT. Zegraspower play3–3
00:00PHIM. Michkovpower play3–3

score reads PHI–LAK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.94

PHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.018

PHI puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

41.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.94Expected goals3.02

LAK 51% of the chance quality

20Shots on goal25

4High-danger chances3

49All attempts (Corsi)70

Adjusted for score: PHI 40% · LAK 60%

Faceoffs · LAK won68%off63%neu67%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PHI1 / 4 · 0.94 xG

LAK0 / 3 · 0.67 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PHI0 / 15 · 1.62 xG

LAK1 / 14 · 1.56 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PHI2 / 30 · 0.37 xG

LAK2 / 53 · 0.78 xG

PHI went 2-for-30 from low danger on 0.37 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PHI

4 G · 2.94 xG · +1.1

LAK

3 G · 3.02 xG · -0.0

012345

PHI finished +1.1 against expected, LAK -0.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PHI

WRIST2/20

TIP IN0/2

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND1/5

SNAP0/1

OTHER0/17

LAK

WRIST2/29

TIP IN0/7

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/0

SNAP1/3

OTHER0/26

PHI

LAK

Off the rush

1 G on 20

1.76 xG

2 G on 29

2.19 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 6

0.97 xG

1 G on 3

0.43 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 2-for-20, LAK 2-for-29. LAK 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 · 22/25 · .880

+0.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium1/141.6+0.6

Low2/530.8-1.2

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

D. Kuemper

LAK · 17/20 · .850

-0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium0/151.6+1.6

Low2/300.4-1.6

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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PHI

34 shots

Final

80 shots

LAK

46 shots

PHI LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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, LAK 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

A. Panarin

#10 · L · LAK

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 26:25 on ice · +1

R. Ristolainen

#55 · D · PHI

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 21:57 on ice · +3

N. Cates

#27 · L · PHI

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:27 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Mar 19

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:13 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 2.2–2.4 goal game with the Kings at 54% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as the regular season offers.

Los Angeles controls the ice. They drive Corsi at 52.0% while Philadelphia sits at 48.0%, a territorial edge that translates to sustained offensive pressure and volume. But Philadelphia compensates through efficiency: their expected goals percentage (51.0%) nearly matches the Kings' 52.0%, meaning the Flyers do more with less. Both teams' PDO values (1.008 and 1.002) suggest their actual goals align with underlying talent—no unsustainable variance waiting to revert.

The Kings enjoy a rest edge. Three days between games versus Philadelphia's five gives Los Angeles freshness. It compounds in the third period, when legs tire and momentum becomes currency.

Offensively, Owen Tippett drives the Flyers at 0.88 xG/60 with 19 goals and 2 high-danger chances on 12.1% shooting. Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 3 HD chances, 11.2% shooting) provides the secondary threat. Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere—0.87 xG/60, 16 goals, 2 HD chances at 9.9% shooting—who matches Tippett's tier. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0 goals, 4 assists) operates in reserve.

The model has it right: Los Angeles' territorial edge and rest advantage justify 54%, but neither is large enough to eliminate doubt. Goaltending and execution will decide this one.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 54%

54%

LAK

Model favorite

46%

54%

PHI50LAK

LAK by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PHI 2.2–2.4 LAK; 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 →LAK

51.0%52.0%

48.0%52.0%

2.262.42

2.202.20

1.961.85

1.821.71

1.0081.002

LAK 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

6-3-1

-1 GD · 5d rest

LAK

5-4-1

-4 GD · 3d rest

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Flyers have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PHI

Expected in goal

D. Vladar

5 days rest.964 last start

Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

LAK

Expected in goal

D. Kuemper

3 days rest.955 last start

Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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

LAK

Alex Laferriere16G 18A

0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh

Jared Wright0G 4A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page