Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
← Thu, Apr 2 · the slate
Breakdown · DET at PHI

J. Gibson stands tall as the Red Wings edge the Flyers

FinalThu, Apr 2
DETDetroit Red Wings4PHIPhiladelphia Flyers2
The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.70–4.77 and won anyway.

DET 4 · PHI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:01 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

The Red Wings stole this one. Philadelphia generated 4.77 expected goals to Detroit's 2.70 and held 64% of shot attempts, yet lost 4–2.

J. Gibson was why. The Wings' goaltender stopped 32 of 34 shots (0.941 save percentage), running 2.77 goals above expected. When Philadelphia owned the play, Gibson was a wall.

Philadelphia could not finish. The Flyers generated 11 high-danger chances to Detroit's 5 and converted zero. S. Ersson made 15 of 19 saves but underperformed by 1.30 goals — a losing effort despite controlling 64% of the xG.

Detroit punished volume. The Wings scored on two low-danger chances and converted three of 18 rush attempts. Philadelphia created eight rebound opportunities and converted one; Detroit created four and converted one. In a tight margin, conversion rate was everything.

Detroit was lethal off the rush. Alex DeBrincat scored twice in 18:20, P. Kane added one goal and two assists, and A. Copp finished with two assists.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 2
DET
4
PHI
2

J. Gibson stands tall as the Red Wings edge the Flyers

Chances 2.7 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
2.70
PHI
4.77
36% of the chances64%

The board read DET 4, PHI 2. The chances read DET 2.7, PHI 4.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+1.3
goals above expected
DET2.70 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI4.77 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers left 2.8 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. P1 18:49DETA. DeBrincatPP1–0
  2. P2 00:31PHIT. Foerster1–1
  3. P2 18:29DETL. Raymond2–1
  4. P3 09:37DETP. Kane3–1
  5. P3 10:29PHIT. Konecny3–2
  6. P3 10:44DETA. DeBrincat4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
30 shots
4
Final
85 shots
PHI
55 shots
2
DET attackPHI attack
DET PHI Goal
30
shots · 4 in
55
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETPHI
1 / 5
1.51 xG
High danger
0 / 11
2.42 xG
1 / 8
0.81 xG
Medium
2 / 15
1.56 xG
2 / 26
0.38 xG
Low
0 / 46
0.79 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 11 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Gibson
+2.8
DET · 32/34
D-
S. Ersson
−1.3
PHI · 15/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Gibson stands tall as the Red Wings edge 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 7–7
  1. 18:49DETA. DeBrincatpower play(P. Kane, M. Seider)1–0
2ndshots 8–12
  1. 00:31PHIT. Foerster(O. Tippett, T. Zegras)1–1
  2. 18:29DETL. Raymond(J. Compher, S. Edvinsson)2–1
3rdshots 4–15
  1. 09:37DETP. Kane(A. Copp)3–1
  2. 10:29PHIT. Konecny(P. Martone, C. Dvorak)3–2
  3. 10:44DETA. DeBrincat(A. Copp, P. Kane)4–2

score reads DET–PHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.70
DET chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.075
DET puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
35.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.70Expected goals4.77
PHI 64% of the chance quality
19Shots on goal34
5High-danger chances11
39All attempts (Corsi)72
Adjusted for score: DET 33% · PHI 67%
Faceoffs · PHI won67%off55%neu33%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DET1 / 5 · 1.51 xG
PHI0 / 11 · 2.42 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DET1 / 8 · 0.81 xG
PHI2 / 15 · 1.56 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DET2 / 26 · 0.38 xG
PHI0 / 46 · 0.79 xG

PHI went 0-for-11 from high danger on 2.42 expected goals — 2.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DET
4 G · 2.70 xG · +1.3
PHI
2 G · 4.77 xG · -2.8
0123456

DET finished +1.3 against expected, PHI -2.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DET
WRIST2/20
SNAP2/3
TIP IN0/1
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
PHI
WRIST0/15
SNAP1/25
TIP IN0/8
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/17
DET
PHI
Off the rush
3 G on 18
1.51 xG
1 G on 36
2.88 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.29 xG
1 G on 8
1.52 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 2-for-20, PHI 0-for-15. DET 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. Gibson
DET · 32/34 · .941
+2.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/112.4+2.4
Medium2/151.6-0.4
Low0/460.8+0.8

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 · 15/19 · .789
-1.3
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.5+0.5
Medium1/80.8-0.2
Low2/260.4-1.6

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DET
30 shots
4
Final
85 shots
PHI
55 shots
2
DET attackPHI attack
DET PHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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
P. Kane
#88 · R · DET
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:27 on ice · +1
A. DeBrincat
#93 · R · DET
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 18:20 on ice · +1
A. Copp
#18 · C · DET
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:59 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:00 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 this as 2.3 to 2.5 for Philadelphia, giving the Flyers 54% win probability—which is to say, barely an edge. The teams are nearly mirror images in the statistics that matter.

At 5v5, Philadelphia leads in expected goals percentage (51.0% to 49.0%), but Detroit stays competitive in Corsi (49.0% to 48.0%). The tiny gap tells you most of what you need: one bounce either way decides this. Philadelphia's PDO of 1.008 suggests some overperformance; Detroit's 0.985 hints at a team due for regression in the other direction. Neither is a decisive advantage.

The scoring threats are similarly matched. Detroit leans on Alex DeBrincat (0.88 xG/60, 17 goals, 28 assists, 2 high-danger goals) and Marco Kasper (0.81 xG/60, 7 goals, 8 assists, 1 high-danger goal). Philadelphia counters with Owen Tippett (0.88 xG/60, 19 goals, 18 assists, 2 high-danger goals) and Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 21 assists, 3 high-danger goals). DeBrincat's 9.0% shooting rate trails Tippett (12.1%) and Dvorak (11.2%), though Kasper at 6.1% lags further still. The production tells you both teams can score; the shooting percentages suggest neither is especially streaky.

The deeper wrinkles are bleaker. Detroit lists Axel Sandin-Pellikka as the defensive weak link; Philadelphia's is oddly Dvorak, who's otherwise their second-line engine. Both teams sit at 0% on high-danger goals and 0% on rebound goals—metrics too low to parse cleanly, but worth noting as potential volatility zones.

This one tilts on goaltending. With the even talent and the razor margins, the team with the warmer crease wins. That's the only real separation available.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 54%
54%
PHI
Model favorite
46%
54%
DET50PHI

PHI by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.3–2.5 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
DET← edge
edge →PHI
49.0%51.0%
49.0%48.0%
2.382.26
2.502.20
1.731.96
2.071.82
0.9851.008

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.008) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
DET
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
PHI
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.985
DET PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
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
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