Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
← Sun, Mar 29 · the slate
Breakdown · DAL at PHI

Flyers edge the Stars in overtime

Final / OTSun, Mar 29
DALDallas Stars1PHIPhiladelphia Flyers2
The verdict · earned

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

DAL 1 · PHI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:29 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 dominance didn't match the scoreline. The Flyers controlled 60% of expected goals at 5-on-5 (4.16 to 2.78), out-attempted Dallas 30 to 18, and won eight high-danger chances to one. By every metric, Philadelphia dominated. Yet it took overtime to finish the game.

Both goaltenders played well. DeSmith posted a 0.933 SV% (+2.16 above expected); Ersson a 0.944 SV% (+1.78 above expected). Yet both teams squandered chances—Philadelphia underperformed its xG by 2.16; Dallas by 1.78. In a tighter game, DeSmith's superior performance mattered more.

Trevor Zegras's snap shot at 03:27 of overtime delivered the verdict. The Flyers' edge came through speed—they scored twice on 30 rush chances, a conversion rate Dallas couldn't sustain. Defensemen C. York and R. Ristolainen controlled the perimeter while T. Konecny provided the finish.

Philadelphia's metrics promised a blowout. Instead they escaped with a one-goal win, a result that felt closer than the underlying numbers warranted—a reminder that possession and shot creation, no matter how dominant, still require finishing.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 29
DAL
1
PHI
2

Flyers edge the Stars in overtime

Chances 2.8 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
2.78
PHI
4.16
40% of the chances60%

The board read DAL 1, PHI 2. The chances read DAL 2.8, PHI 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
−2.2
goals above expected
PHI4.16 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL2.78 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars left 1.8 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 09:48PHIT. KonecnyPP0–1
  2. P2 17:53DALA. HyrySH1–1
  3. OT 03:27PHIT. Zegras1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
31 shots
1
Final
77 shots
PHI
46 shots
2
DAL attackPHI attack
DAL PHI Goal
31
shots · 1 in
46
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALPHI
0 / 1
0.19 xG
High danger
1 / 8
2.16 xG
1 / 16
2.16 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.29 xG
0 / 25
0.43 xG
Low
0 / 32
0.71 xG

High-danger looks: DAL 0 of 1, PHI 1 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. DeSmith
+2.2
DAL · 28/30
A
S. Ersson
+1.8
PHI · 17/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers edge the Stars in overtime

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 6–4no goals
    2ndshots 9–13
    1. 09:48PHIT. Konecnypower play(M. Michkov, R. Ristolainen)0–1
    2. 17:53DALA. Hyryshorthanded1–1
    3rdshots 3–9no goals
      OTshots 0–4
      1. 03:27PHIT. Zegras(C. York, S. Ersson)1–2

      score reads DAL–PHI

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      4.16
      PHI chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −2.2
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.015
      PHI puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      55.3%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.78Expected goals4.16
      PHI 60% of the chance quality
      18Shots on goal30
      1High-danger chances8
      42All attempts (Corsi)52
      Adjusted for score: DAL 45% · PHI 55%
      Faceoffs · PHI won59%off57%neu53%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      DAL0 / 1 · 0.19 xG
      PHI1 / 8 · 2.16 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      DAL1 / 16 · 2.16 xG
      PHI1 / 12 · 1.29 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      DAL0 / 25 · 0.43 xG
      PHI0 / 32 · 0.71 xG

      PHI went 1-for-8 from high danger on 2.16 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      DAL
      1 G · 2.78 xG · -1.8
      PHI
      2 G · 4.16 xG · -2.2
      012345

      DAL finished -1.8 against expected, PHI -2.2.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      DAL
      SNAP1/5
      WRIST0/12
      TIP IN0/7
      SLAP0/2
      BACKHAND0/4
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      OTHER0/11
      PHI
      SNAP1/22
      WRIST1/11
      TIP IN0/4
      SLAP0/5
      BACKHAND0/3
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      OTHER0/6
      DAL
      PHI
      Off the rush
      1 G on 22
      2.00 xG
      2 G on 30
      3.03 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 3
      0.46 xG
      0 G on 4
      0.67 xG

      Snap shots carried the volume: DAL went 1-for-5, PHI 1-for-22. 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
      C. DeSmith
      DAL · 28/30 · .933
      +2.2
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/82.2+1.2
      Medium1/121.3+0.3
      Low0/320.7+0.7

      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. Ersson
      PHI · 17/18 · .944
      +1.8
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/10.2+0.2
      Medium1/162.2+1.2
      Low0/250.4+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

      77 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      DAL
      31 shots
      1
      Final
      77 shots
      PHI
      46 shots
      2
      DAL attackPHI attack
      DAL PHI Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL 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
      C. York
      #8 · D · PHI
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 24:12 on ice · +1
      R. Ristolainen
      #55 · D · PHI
      0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:12 on ice
      T. Konecny
      #11 · R · PHI
      1 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 21:24 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sun, Mar 29
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:28 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

      This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The model projects a DAL 2.3–2.4 PHI game with the Flyers at 52% win probability—neutral ground in a league where slight edges compound.

      The underlying metrics reinforce the evenness. Both teams are running identical 51.0% expected-goal share at 5v5. Dallas edges in Corsi at 47.0%, while Philadelphia leads at 48.0%—marginal separations that suggest neither team has seized a decisive structural advantage.

      The Flyers hold a tangible edge: three days of rest against Dallas's one. That matters in the third period. But Dallas's underlying scoring efficiency betrays a team running hot. The Stars' PDO sits at 1.024 compared to Philadelphia's 1.008, which means Dallas is finishing chances at an elevated rate. That tends to regress, particularly against a rested opponent.

      Goaltending adds uncertainty. J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back, which typically signals either a backup appearance or a fatigued starter—either scenario favors Philadelphia's depth and prep time.

      The matchup hinges on Dallas's offensive talent against Philadelphia's refresh. Jason Robertson is producing at 0.96 xG/60 with 25 goals and 21 assists, backed by a 12.4% shooting rate and 2 high-danger chances converted. Michael Bunting operates at 0.83 xG/60, having added 8 goals and 14 assists at 7.6%. Both have enough pure talent to crack a tired defense.

      Philadelphia counters with Owen Tippett at 0.88 xG/60—19 goals, 18 assists, two high-danger finishes, and a 12.1% shooting rate—and Christian Dvorak at 0.81 xG/60 with 12 goals, 21 assists, three HD goals, and an 11.2% conversion rate. Dvorak, notably, represents Philadelphia's defensive weak link, a detail that complicates the team's ability to weather Dallas's top-six pressure.

      Dallas's defensive concern centers on Tyler Myers. That liability matters when Philadelphia's offense gets rolling in the third.

      Both teams are operating at a 0% high-danger and 0% rebound conversion rate, an anomaly that suggests variance could swing either direction in a tight game. This matchup has no true favorite—just evenly matched rosters with minor advantages that cancel out.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      PHI 52%
      52%
      PHI
      Model favorite
      48%
      52%
      DAL50PHI

      PHI by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 2.3–2.4 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
      DAL← edge
      edge →PHI
      51.0%51.0%
      47.0%48.0%
      2.362.26
      2.292.20
      2.071.96
      1.681.82
      1.0241.008

      The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.008) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      DAL
      5-4-1
      +3 GD · 1d rest
      PHI
      7-2-1
      +8 GD · 3d rest
      1.024
      DAL PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.008
      PHI PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Regression watch
      • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Things to watch
      • J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
      • The Flyers have 2 more days of rest.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      DAL
      Expected in goal
      J. Oettinger
      back-to-back.750 last start
      Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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.

      PHI
      Expected in goal
      S. Ersson
      3 days rest.962 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
      DAL
      Jason Robertson25G 21A
      0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
      Michael Bunting8G 14A
      0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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

      Back to the front page