Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
← Sat, Mar 28 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at DET

Flyers hold off the Red Wings

FinalSat, Mar 28
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers5DETDetroit Red Wings3
The verdict · earned

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

PHI 5 · DET 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:22 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

Detroit controlled shot volume but lacked the punch to convert it. The Flyers won 5-3 despite being outshot 35-26 on goal; Philadelphia commanded 56% of 5v5 expected goals (4.66–3.72), meaning the Red Wings' shot advantage masked an underlying disadvantage.

The schism was one of quality. Detroit generated high-danger chances at a 0.059 xG per shot; Philadelphia's rate was 0.099. Out of 16 combined high-danger chances, Detroit managed only 7—and converted zero. That's unsustainable; the Red Wings couldn't finish.

Goaltending told the story. D. Vladar posted a 0.914 SV% (32/35) that beat expected by 0.72 goals, going 7 for 7 on high-danger attempts. C. Talbot went 4 for 4 for Detroit. J. Gibson faced the bulk of the workload, stopping 17 of 21 (0.810 SV%).

Rush play cut both ways. Philadelphia scored 3 goals on 23 rush chances; Detroit matched that efficiency with 3 on 25 attempts. The edge came elsewhere: Philadelphia's power play was lethal, converting twice on four attempts (1.22 xG), while Detroit couldn't cash in on its high-danger looks.

Sean Couturier's wrist shot from the point (P3, 17:56) served as the turning point—a clinical finish that reflected Philadelphia's ability to make each opportunity count.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 28
PHI
5
DET
3

Flyers hold off the Red Wings

Chances 4.7 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
4.66
DET
3.72
56% of the chances44%

The board read PHI 5, DET 3. The chances read PHI 4.7, DET 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
+0.3
goals above expected
PHI4.66 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
DET3.72 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 04:07PHIO. Tippett1–0
  2. P2 12:22PHIO. Tippett2–0
  3. P2 16:08PHIN. CatesPP3–0
  4. P3 07:19PHIO. TippettPP4–0
  5. P3 13:43DETM. Appleton4–1
  6. P3 15:10DETA. DeBrincat4–2
  7. P3 16:14DETL. RaymondPP4–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
36 shots
5
Final
83 shots
DET
47 shots
3
PHI attackDET attack
PHI DET Goal
36
shots · 5 in
47
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIDET
3 / 9
3.11 xG
High danger
0 / 7
1.76 xG
2 / 10
1.10 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.40 xG
0 / 28
0.44 xG
Low
1 / 44
0.57 xG

The Red Wings went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
C. Talbot
+4.7
DET · 4/4
B
D. Vladar
+0.7
PHI · 32/35
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers hold off the Red Wings

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 8–7
  1. 04:07PHIO. Tippett(T. Zegras)1–0
2ndshots 9–11
  1. 12:22PHIO. Tippett(D. Barkey, J. Drysdale)2–0
  2. 16:08PHIN. Catespower play(M. Michkov, T. Konecny)3–0
3rdshots 9–17
  1. 07:19PHIO. Tippettpower play(J. Drysdale, T. Konecny)4–0
  2. 13:43DETM. Appleton(J. Faulk)4–1
  3. 15:10DETA. DeBrincat(P. Kane, M. Seider)4–2
  4. 16:14DETL. Raymondpower play(M. Seider, P. Kane)4–3
  5. 17:56PHIS. Couturierempty net(O. Tippett)5–3

score reads PHI–DET

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.66
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.059
PHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
42.7%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.66Expected goals3.72
PHI 56% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal35
9High-danger chances7
47All attempts (Corsi)63
Adjusted for score: PHI 37% · DET 63%
Faceoffs · DET won35%off46%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI3 / 9 · 3.11 xG
DET0 / 7 · 1.76 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI2 / 10 · 1.10 xG
DET2 / 12 · 1.40 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI0 / 28 · 0.44 xG
DET1 / 44 · 0.57 xG

DET went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.76 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
5 G · 4.66 xG · +0.3
DET
3 G · 3.72 xG · -0.7
0123456

PHI finished +0.3 against expected, DET -0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST4/16
SNAP1/13
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/11
DET
WRIST1/20
SNAP2/19
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/16
PHI
DET
Off the rush
3 G on 23
2.26 xG
3 G on 25
2.59 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.88 xG
0 G on 4
0.68 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 4-for-16, DET 1-for-20. 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 · 32/35 · .914
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.8+1.8
Medium2/121.4-0.6
Low1/440.6-0.4

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

J. Gibson
DET · 17/21 · .810
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/93.1+0.1
Medium2/101.1-0.9
Low0/280.4+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

C. Talbot
DET · 4/4 · 1.000
+4.7
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/93.1+0.1
Medium2/101.1-0.9
Low0/280.4+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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
36 shots
5
Final
83 shots
DET
47 shots
3
PHI attackDET attack
PHI DET Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, DET 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
O. Tippett
#74 · R · PHI
3 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 16:38 on ice · +2
M. Seider
#53 · D · DET
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 28:09 on ice
P. Kane
#88 · R · DET
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 20:40 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 28
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:20 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 2.4-2.4 game with the Red Wings at 50% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Philadelphia arrives on the back of a 7-2-1 run over their last 10 games. At even strength, however, Detroit edges out the Flyers on both shot and expected-goal volume: the Red Wings generated 49.0% Corsi and 49.0% xG, while Philadelphia mustered 48.0% Corsi and 51.0% xG. That discrepancy—the Flyers generating slightly more expected goals despite fewer shot attempts—coupled with a PDO of 1.008 versus Detroit's 0.985, suggests Philadelphia has converted above their expected rate. Regression favors Detroit.

J. Gibson starts the second half of a back-to-back, a scheduling burden that can flatten even elite goaltending.

#### Players to Watch

PHI

Owen Tippett produces 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes with 19 goals and 18 assists on a 12.1% shooting rate, including 2 high-danger goals. Christian Dvorak trails at 0.81 xG/60 but has matched him in offensive impact: 12 goals, 21 assists, and 3 high-danger tallies on 11.2% shooting.

DET

Alex DeBrincat mirrors Tippett's 0.88 xG/60 with 17 goals and 28 assists on 9.0% shooting; 2 of those goals came from high-danger spots. Marco Kasper's 0.81 xG/60 mirrors Dvorak's rate, though his 7 goals and 8 assists on 6.1% shooting, with 1 high-danger goal, shows less conversion.

Christian Dvorak is Philadelphia's defensive weak link; Axel Sandin-Pellikka holds that role for Detroit. Neither team has scored from high-danger chances or rebounds this season. In a game this narrow, whoever breaks that silence first will likely decide it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DET 50%
50%
DET
Model favorite
50%
50%
PHI50DET

DET by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.4–2.4 DET; 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 →DET
51.0%49.0%
48.0%49.0%
2.262.38
2.202.50
1.961.73
1.822.07
1.0080.985

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.985) 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
+8 GD · 2d rest
DET
4-5-1
+1 GD · 1d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.985
DET PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • J. Gibson 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).
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
S. Ersson
2 days rest.962 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

DET
Expected in goal
J. Gibson
back-to-back.933 last start
Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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
DET
Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
Marco Kasper7G 8A
0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page