Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
Breakdown · CBJ at PHI

Blue Jackets hold off the Flyers

The verdict · stolen

The Blue Jackets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.54–3.12 and won anyway.

CBJ 3 · PHI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:43 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

Columbus stole this one: the Flyers commanded 55% of expected goals but went home empty, losing 3–2 to a team that had no business winning.

The Flyers generated 3.12 xG to Columbus's 2.54, controlled 58% of shot attempts (26–19), and held a 5–3 edge in high-danger chances. By every measure except the scoreboard, Philadelphia dominated. J. Greaves stopped 1.12 goals above expected—the difference between a competitive loss and a heist. D. Vladar finished 0.842, below the standard required to protect a lead against this volume.

Columbus exploited what goaltending couldn't cover: two low-danger goals that belonged to Philadelphia's starter, and a rush attack that converted three times on twenty chances. The Flyers generated five rebound opportunities (one converted) to Columbus's three. They crashed the net hard. The problem was goaltending variance flipped the result.

Jamie Drysdale's slap shot from the top of the circles (P3, 17:56) proved the pivot—a goal that briefly made the scoreboard match the hockey.

Z. Werenski set the tone across 24:27, recording 1G and 1A. D. Severson added two assists from the blue line (23:18). M. Marchment chipped in 1G and 1A in just 15:03, efficient when deployed.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 24
CBJ
3
PHI
2

Blue Jackets hold off the Flyers

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

The Flyers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
2.54
PHI
3.12
45% of the chances55%

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

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
+0.5
goals above expected
CBJ2.54 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI3.12 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 17:07PHIS. Couturier0–1
  2. P2 00:44CBJM. Olivier1–1
  3. P2 02:28CBJZ. Werenski2–1
  4. P3 04:38CBJM. Marchment3–1
  5. P3 17:56PHIJ. DrysdalePP3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
34 shots
3
Final
78 shots
PHI
44 shots
2
CBJ attackPHI attack
CBJ PHI Goal
34
shots · 3 in
44
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJPHI
0 / 3
0.91 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.15 xG
1 / 8
0.97 xG
Medium
0 / 15
1.45 xG
2 / 34
0.66 xG
Low
1 / 38
0.52 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 0 of 3, PHI 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Greaves
+1.1
CBJ · 24/26
D
D. Vladar
−0.5
PHI · 16/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets hold off the Flyers

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 3–10
  1. 17:07PHIS. Couturier(L. Glendening, R. Ristolainen)0–1
2ndshots 11–7
  1. 00:44CBJM. Olivier(Z. Werenski, D. Severson)1–1
  2. 02:28CBJZ. Werenski(D. Severson, M. Marchment)2–1
3rdshots 5–9
  1. 04:38CBJM. Marchment(K. Marchenko, A. Fantilli)3–1
  2. 17:56PHIJ. Drysdalepower play(T. Zegras, C. Dvorak)3–2

score reads CBJ–PHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.54
CBJ chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.032
CBJ puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.7%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.54Expected goals3.12
PHI 55% of the chance quality
19Shots on goal26
3High-danger chances5
45All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: CBJ 41% · PHI 59%
Faceoffs · PHI won67%off56%neu40%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CBJ0 / 3 · 0.91 xG
PHI1 / 5 · 1.15 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CBJ1 / 8 · 0.97 xG
PHI0 / 15 · 1.45 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CBJ2 / 34 · 0.66 xG
PHI1 / 38 · 0.52 xG

PHI went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.45 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CBJ
3 G · 2.54 xG · +0.5
PHI
2 G · 3.12 xG · -1.1
01234

CBJ finished +0.5 against expected, PHI -1.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CBJ
SNAP1/6
WRIST2/18
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/11
PHI
SNAP0/22
WRIST1/9
SLAP1/5
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/14
CBJ
PHI
Off the rush
3 G on 20
1.41 xG
0 G on 24
1.83 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.36 xG
1 G on 5
0.70 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CBJ went 1-for-6, PHI 0-for-22. CBJ 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
J. Greaves
CBJ · 24/26 · .923
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.1+0.1
Medium0/151.4+1.4
Low1/380.5-0.5

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

D. Vladar
PHI · 16/19 · .842
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.9+0.9
Medium1/81.0-0.0
Low2/340.7-1.3

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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CBJ
34 shots
3
Final
78 shots
PHI
44 shots
2
CBJ attackPHI attack
CBJ PHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ left, PHI 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
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:27 on ice · +1
D. Severson
#78 · D · CBJ
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:18 on ice · +1
M. Marchment
#17 · L · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 15:03 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 24
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:41 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 calls this essentially a toss-up. Columbus projects to 2.4 or 2.5 goals while Philadelphia sits at 51% win probability—the thinnest of edges in what amounts to a pick'em matchup.

The underlying possession metrics explain the split. Columbus generates more dangerous scoring chances—52.0% expected goals to Philadelphia's 51.0%—and controls shot attempts more decisively (51.0% Corsi to 48.0%). Yet Philadelphia benefits from better luck: a 1.008 PDO against Columbus's 1.003 explains the model's slight preference for the Flyers.

Columbus's territorial edge should matter. At 51.0% Corsi, they drive more volume and create more legitimate opportunities. Possession edges this tight historically translate to goals over time.

Boone Jenner anchors Columbus's offense at 0.98 xG per 60 minutes. He has 11 goals and 21 assists on 9.6% shooting, but has only two high-danger goals relative to his volume, suggesting his percentages may revert. Mathieu Olivier supports at 0.89 xG/60 with 12 goals and 9 assists, shooting 13.3%, though just one high-danger goal. That imbalance suggests his finishing could cool.

Philadelphia counters with Owen Tippett, who leads this matchup in raw goals at 19. Tippett generates 0.88 xG/60—nearly Jenner's rate—with 18 assists and two high-danger goals, shooting at 12.1%. He's both creating and converting efficiently. Christian Dvorak supplies secondary scoring at 0.81 xG/60 with 12 goals and 21 assists, shooting 11.2%, and has buried three high-danger opportunities—a conversion rate that appears unsustainably efficient.

Neither team capitalizes on high-danger opportunities or rebounds at any meaningful rate; both sit at 0% HD goal rate. The game reduces to possession and shooting accuracy. Columbus must sustain territorial pressure to wear Philadelphia down. Philadelphia will attack through Conor Garland, Columbus's defensive weak link. Christian Dvorak, Philadelphia's defensive liability, presents an opening for Columbus. Philadelphia's puck-luck cushion provides minor insurance, but Columbus should prevail if they maintain their Corsi advantage and shoot to expectation.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 51%
51%
PHI
Model favorite
49%
51%
CBJ50PHI

PHI by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.4–2.5 PHI; 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
CBJ← edge
edge →PHI
52.0%51.0%
51.0%48.0%
2.632.26
2.432.20
2.121.96
1.981.82
1.0031.008

CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.008) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CBJ
6-1-3
+12 GD · 2d rest
PHI
7-2-1
+3 GD · 3d rest
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CBJ
Expected in goal
J. Greaves
2 days rest.955 last start
Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
3 days rest.960 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 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
CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next