Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
Breakdown · PHI at NYI

Flyers run the Islanders off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

PHI 4 · NYI 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:27 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 Flyers demolished the Islanders 4-1, and the underlying numbers showed a massacre. Philadelphia controlled 62% of 5v5 expected goals (5.13–3.20) — a gap that made even the final margin look close.

The Islanders generated shot volume (51% of attempts at 22–21) but manufactured nothing dangerous. Their expected goals landed at 38% despite nearly matching Philadelphia's shot count. This split widened when it mattered: Philly averaged 0.109 xG per shot; the Islanders managed just 0.050. Volume and quality are different skills, and New York failed at the latter.

Both teams buried zero high-danger chances — the Islanders 0-for-5, Philadelphia 0-for-7 — a mutual ice-cold finish that shouldn't happen twice in one night. It didn't matter. The Flyers monetized elsewhere: three goals off the rush from 21 chances, and six rebound opportunities with one converted. They crashed the net; the Islanders didn't.

D. Vladar stole the show in net. He stopped 21 of 22 shots (0.955 SV%) and outperformed his expected save percentage by 2.20 goals — a wall on high-danger looks, surrendering nothing of substance. I. Sorokin managed 17 of 21 (0.810 SV%), beating expected by 1.13 but unable to stop the onslaught. The Flyers' underlying edge was simply too wide.

Philadelphia's attack was surgical. #39 M. Michkov (1G–2A, 11:43) and #6 T. Sanheim (1G–1A, 24:36) led the way. #20 A. Bump (1G–1A, 09:09) applied the finishing touches.

The scoreline was decisive. The underlying dominance was categorical.

  • #39 M. Michkov (PHI) — 1G, 2A in 11:43
  • #6 T. Sanheim (PHI) — 1G, 1A in 24:36
  • #20 A. Bump (PHI) — 1G, 1A in 09:09
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 3
PHI
4
NYI
1

Flyers run the Islanders off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.1 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
5.13
NYI
3.20
62% of the chances38%

The board read PHI 4, NYI 1. The chances read PHI 5.1, NYI 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
−1.1
goals above expected
PHI5.13 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NYI3.20 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Islanders left 2.2 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 13:54PHIO. Tippett1–0
  2. P1 15:01PHIA. Bump2–0
  3. P2 02:52PHIM. Michkov3–0
  4. P2 15:37NYIJ. Pageau3–1
  5. P3 09:16PHIT. Sanheim4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
36 shots
4
Final
73 shots
NYI
37 shots
1
PHI attackNYI attack
PHI NYI Goal
36
shots · 4 in
37
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHINYI
0 / 7
3.21 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.63 xG
3 / 13
1.60 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.05 xG
1 / 27
0.32 xG
Low
0 / 48
0.52 xG

The Islanders went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Vladar
+2.2
PHI · 21/22
B+
I. Sorokin
+1.1
NYI · 17/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers run the Islanders 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 12–2
  1. 13:54PHIO. Tippett(T. Sanheim)1–0
  2. 15:01PHIA. Bump(M. Michkov, N. Cates)2–0
2ndshots 6–12
  1. 02:52PHIM. Michkov3–0
  2. 15:37NYIJ. Pageau(M. Barzal, S. Holmstrom)3–1
3rdshots 3–8
  1. 09:16PHIT. Sanheim(M. Michkov, A. Bump)4–1

score reads PHI–NYI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.13
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.1
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.069
PHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
42.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.13Expected goals3.20
PHI 62% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal22
7High-danger chances5
47All attempts (Corsi)64
Adjusted for score: PHI 37% · NYI 64%
Faceoffs · NYI won75%off50%neu44%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI0 / 7 · 3.21 xG
NYI0 / 5 · 1.63 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI3 / 13 · 1.60 xG
NYI1 / 11 · 1.05 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI1 / 27 · 0.32 xG
NYI0 / 48 · 0.52 xG

PHI went 0-for-7 from high danger on 3.21 expected goals — 3.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
4 G · 5.13 xG · -1.1
NYI
1 G · 3.20 xG · -2.2
0123456

PHI finished -1.1 against expected, NYI -2.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST1/22
SNAP1/4
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND2/3
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/11
NYI
WRIST1/20
SNAP0/13
TIP IN0/1
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/27
PHI
NYI
Off the rush
3 G on 21
1.75 xG
1 G on 22
2.02 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 6
0.95 xG
0 G on 1
0.03 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-22, NYI 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 · 21/22 · .955
+2.2
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.6+1.6
Medium1/111.1+0.1
Low0/480.5+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

I. Sorokin
NYI · 17/21 · .810
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/73.2+3.2
Medium3/131.6-1.4
Low1/270.3-0.7

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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
36 shots
4
Final
73 shots
NYI
37 shots
1
PHI attackNYI attack
PHI NYI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, NYI 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
M. Michkov
#39 · R · PHI
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 11:43 on ice · +3
T. Sanheim
#6 · D · PHI
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:36 on ice · +3
A. Bump
#20 · L · PHI
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 09:09 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Apr 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:09 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 PHI 2.5 - 2.5 NYI with the Flyers at 50% win probability — about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Philadelphia owns the underlying play, generating 51.0% of expected goals at 5v5 compared to the Islanders' 48.0%. That advantage translates to sustained offensive pressure, but it narrows when accounting for rest: New York arrives on three days of recovery while the Flyers have only one.

S. Ersson enters on a back-to-back, creating uncertainty around Philadelphia's goaltending availability. Whether he starts fresh, appears fatigued, or cedes the net to a backup shapes the team's offensive burden.

The Islanders' rest edge directly counters Philadelphia's possession advantage. Three days of recovery will amplify their structural discipline, potentially suppressing the Flyers' shot-generation rate.

Owen Tippett anchors the Flyers' threat with 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes, 19 goals, 18 assists, 2 high-danger chances, and a 12.1% shooting percentage. Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 21 assists, 3 high-danger chances, 11.2% shooting) compounds that firepower but represents Philadelphia's defensive liability.

Anders Lee carries the Islanders at 1.20 xG/60 with 9 goals, 20 assists, 2 high-danger chances, and 6.4% shooting. Bo Horvat (0.87 xG/60, 18 goals, 10 assists, 3 high-danger chances, 12.8% shooting) doubles that punch. Alexander Romanov anchors the Islanders' blue line, which projects as their defensive vulnerability.

Philadelphia wins if their underlying advantage survives short rest. New York wins if rest discipline tightens structure and limits shot generation. S. Ersson's performance becomes the decisive variable.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 50%
50%
PHI
Model favorite
50%
50%
PHI50NYI

PHI by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.5–2.5 NYI; 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 →NYI
51.0%48.0%
48.0%49.0%
2.262.48
2.202.69
1.961.78
1.821.94
1.0080.993

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.993) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PHI
6-3-1
+6 GD · 1d rest
NYI
5-5-0
-4 GD · 3d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
NYI 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%.
  • S. Ersson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Islanders have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
S. Ersson
back-to-back.789 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.

NYI
Expected in goal
I. Sorokin
3 days rest.906 last start
Backup Ilya Sorokin · +25.3 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
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
NYI
Anders Lee9G 20A
1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh
Bo Horvat18G 10A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next