Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater

Breakdown · PHI at SJS

Flyers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Mar 21

PHIPhiladelphia Flyers4 SJSSan Jose Sharks1

The verdict · earned

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

PHI 4 · SJS 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:18 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 4-1 victory understates the dominance they imposed. The Flyers' control emerges even starker in high-danger chances: 13 to 3, a margin that extends well beyond their 68-32 advantage in expected goals (6.06-2.89).

The Sharks held 47% of shot attempts yet managed just 19% of high-danger chances. When shot volume and quality diverge this sharply, the superior team's margin expands. San Jose generated low-quality looks despite accumulating decent volume.

A. Nedeljkovic held the line with exceptional performance. He saved 4.06 goals above expected on 24 of 26 stops. D. Vladar faced lighter work: 1.89 saves above expected on 24 of 25 shots. The Flyers' advantage stemmed from chance quality, not goaltending margin.

Flyers' superiority extended to every dimension. Their shot quality was sharp—0.110 xG per attempt versus San Jose's 0.051. Off the rush, they scored 2 goals on 25 chances, converting their pace advantage into scoring.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 21

PHI

SJS

Flyers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 6.1 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

PHI

6.06

SJS

2.89

68% of the chances32%

The board read PHI 4, SJS 1. The chances read PHI 6.1, SJS 2.9.

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

Luck check

PHI

−2.1

goals above expected

PHI6.06 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

SJS2.89 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Sharks left 1.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 02:26PHIO. Tippett1–0
P2 13:12SJSD. OrlovPP1–1
P3 01:47PHIC. DvorakPP2–1
P3 18:48PHIT. SanheimEN3–1
P3 19:24PHIN. CatesEN4–1

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

Where the shots came from

PHI

43 shots

Final

82 shots

SJS

39 shots

PHI SJS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PHISJS

2 / 13

4.03 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.73 xG

2 / 15

1.59 xG

Medium

0 / 15

1.57 xG

0 / 27

0.44 xG

Low

0 / 39

0.60 xG

The Flyers buried 2 of 13 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A+

A. Nedeljkovic

+4.1

SJS · 24/26

D. Vladar

+1.9

PHI · 24/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Flyers run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 6–6no goals

2ndshots 11–7

02:26PHIO. Tippett(T. Zegras, N. Juulsen)1–0
13:12SJSD. Orlovpower play(W. Eklund, M. Celebrini)1–1

3rdshots 11–12

01:47PHIC. Dvorakpower play(T. Konecny, M. Michkov)2–1
18:48PHIT. Sanheimempty net3–1
19:24PHIN. Catesempty net(C. Dvorak)4–1

score reads PHI–SJS

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

6.06

PHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.055

PHI 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

6.06Expected goals2.89

PHI 68% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal25

13High-danger chances3

55All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: PHI 47% · SJS 53%

Faceoffs · SJS won60%off50%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PHI2 / 13 · 4.03 xG

SJS1 / 3 · 0.73 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PHI2 / 15 · 1.59 xG

SJS0 / 15 · 1.57 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PHI0 / 27 · 0.44 xG

SJS0 / 39 · 0.60 xG

PHI went 2-for-13 from high danger on 4.03 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PHI

4 G · 6.06 xG · -2.1

SJS

1 G · 2.89 xG · -1.9

01234567

PHI finished -2.1 against expected, SJS -1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PHI

WRIST4/26

TIP IN0/11

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/2

SNAP0/2

OTHER0/12

SJS

WRIST1/21

TIP IN0/4

SLAP0/10

BACKHAND0/3

SNAP0/1

OTHER0/18

PHI

SJS

Off the rush

2 G on 25

2.73 xG

1 G on 31

2.59 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5

1.20 xG

0 G on 1

0.01 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 4-for-26, SJS 1-for-21. 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

D. Vladar

PHI · 24/25 · .960

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.7-0.3

Medium0/151.6+1.6

Low0/390.6+0.6

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

A. Nedeljkovic

SJS · 24/26 · .923

+4.1

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/134.0+2.0

Medium2/151.6-0.4

Low0/270.4+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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PHI

43 shots

Final

82 shots

SJS

39 shots

PHI SJS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

C. Dvorak

#22 · C · PHI

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 25:32 on ice · +2

T. Sanheim

#6 · D · PHI

1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 28:57 on ice · +1

D. Orlov

#9 · D · SJS

1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 24:52 on ice · -2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 21

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:14 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 spits out a 2.4–2.4 projection with Philadelphia at 51% win probability. That's a coin flip with a heavier metal on one side, barely.

Philadelphia arrives hot: 7-2-1 over their last ten games. San Jose arrives cold, sitting at minus-8 goal differential in that same stretch. But the underlying picture is the real story. The Flyers control play at 5v5 with 51.0% expected goals against 48.0%, a margin that's held across ten games. Corsi% shows a similar tilt: Flyers 48.0%, Sharks 47.0%. It's not overwhelming dominance, but it's directional.

Both starting goaltenders face a back-to-back. A. Nedeljkovic and S. Ersson are on the second leg of the set. Backup appearances or fatigue on either side becomes a variable in a game this tight.

Owen Tippett carries the Flyers' offensive load. He's generating 0.88 expected goals per 60 at 5v5, with 19 goals and 18 assists on the season, including 2 high-danger chances. His 12.1% shooting rate reads as efficient—he's not riding luck. Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 21 assists, 3 HD goals, 11.2% shooting) is a secondary creator, though his lower shooting rate suggests tighter margins on conversion.

San Jose counters with Pavol Regenda, who's generating 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes—the highest rate among these four players. He has 5 goals and 1 assist with 2 high-danger chances, but his 16.1% shooting rate is likely to regress. Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6 goals, 8 assists, 1 HD goal, 15.0% shooting) rounds out the Sharks' attack, similarly running hot by shooting percentage.

On the luck front: Philadelphia's season PDO sits at 1.008, suggesting a touch of overperformance. San Jose's is 0.998, suggesting a touch of underperformance. But the Sharks' minus-8 goal differential is stickier—ten games of being outplayed, not variance. The Flyers have the momentum and the metrics. That's the edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 51%

51%

PHI

Model favorite

51%

49%

PHI50SJS

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

51.0%48.0%

48.0%47.0%

2.262.33

2.202.56

1.961.99

1.822.32

1.0080.998

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.998) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

PHI

7-2-1

+2 GD · 1d rest

SJS

4-4-2

-8 GD · 1d rest

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

SJS 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%.
A. Nedeljkovic is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
S. Ersson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Flyers are the hotter team by points pace (7-2-1 in their last 10).
The Sharks are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PHI

Expected in goal

S. Ersson

back-to-back.880 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.

SJS

Expected in goal

A. Nedeljkovic

back-to-back.688 last start

Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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

SJS

Pavol Regenda5G 1A

1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh

Igor Chernyshov6G 8A

0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page