Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
← Thu, Apr 9 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at DET

Red Wings pull away from the Flyers

FinalThu, Apr 9
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers3DETDetroit Red Wings6
The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.71–2.25 and won anyway.

PHI 3 · DET 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:01 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 Flyers' underlying numbers suggested a competitive game—2.71 expected goals to Detroit's 2.25—yet they lost 6-3, a three-goal result the model didn't anticipate. The Red Wings overperformed their expected goals by 3.75 goals, converting chances at a rate the underlying numbers rarely support.

The separation was sharpest in transition, where Detroit scored 6 on 19 rush attempts. Philadelphia managed just 2 from 31 chances despite holding 55% of shot attempts—evidence of poor finishing when holding possession. The power play amplified the gap: Detroit scored 3 on 8 shots (0.77 expected goals), a rate well above historical norms.

Goaltending disparities emerged clearly. C. Talbot (0.917, +1.7 above expected) and J. Gibson (0.867) steadied Detroit's depth. D. Vladar (0.500 on 8 shots, −3.18 vs. expected) allowed 4 goals on limited volume—a poor outing for the Flyers. S. Ersson (0.857, −0.57 vs. expected) performed better across 14 shots, but insufficient when Vladar struggled.

Three Stars: M. Seider (1G, 4A), D. Larkin (3G, 1A), P. Kane (1G, 2A).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 9
PHI
3
DET
6

Red Wings pull away from the Flyers

Chances 2.7 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.71
DET
2.25
55% of the chances45%

The board read PHI 3, DET 6. The chances read PHI 2.7, DET 2.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+3.8
goals above expected
DET2.25 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI2.71 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Red Wings scored 3.8 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:28DETA. DeBrincatPP0–1
  2. P1 13:24PHIC. Dvorak1–1
  3. P2 00:32DETM. SeiderPP1–2
  4. P2 01:50DETD. LarkinPP1–3
  5. P2 04:56DETD. LarkinSH1–4
  6. P2 09:25PHIP. MartonePP2–4
  7. P3 07:01DETP. Kane2–5
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
40 shots
3
Final
66 shots
DET
26 shots
6
PHI attackDET attack
PHI DET Goal
40
shots · 3 in
26
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIDET
0 / 3
0.66 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.45 xG
3 / 13
1.33 xG
Medium
5 / 13
1.52 xG
0 / 38
0.73 xG
Low
0 / 25
0.28 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. Talbot
+1.7
DET · 11/12
B
J. Gibson
+0.7
DET · 13/15
+2 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings pull away from 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 11–4
  1. 02:28DETA. DeBrincatpower play(L. Raymond, M. Seider)0–1
  2. 13:24PHIC. Dvorak(P. Martone, T. Konecny)1–1
2ndshots 6–12
  1. 00:32DETM. Seiderpower play(P. Kane, D. Larkin)1–2
  2. 01:50DETD. Larkinpower play(P. Kane, M. Seider)1–3
  3. 04:56DETD. Larkinshorthanded(A. Johansson)1–4
  4. 09:25PHIP. Martonepower play(T. Zegras, J. Drysdale)2–4
3rdshots 10–6
  1. 07:01DETP. Kane(S. Edvinsson, M. Seider)2–5
  2. 11:39DETD. Larkin(M. Seider, L. Raymond)2–6
  3. 18:09PHIL. Glendening(D. Barkey, S. Couturier)3–6

score reads PHI–DET

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.25
DET chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.094
DET puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
42.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.71Expected goals2.25
PHI 55% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal22
3High-danger chances2
54All attempts (Corsi)40
Adjusted for score: PHI 63% · DET 37%
Faceoffs · DET won48%off47%neu64%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI0 / 3 · 0.66 xG
DET1 / 2 · 0.45 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI3 / 13 · 1.33 xG
DET5 / 13 · 1.52 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI0 / 38 · 0.73 xG
DET0 / 25 · 0.28 xG

DET went 5-for-13 from medium danger on 1.52 expected goals — 3.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
3 G · 2.71 xG · +0.3
DET
6 G · 2.25 xG · +3.8
01234567

PHI finished +0.3 against expected, DET +3.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST1/16
SNAP0/10
SLAP0/5
TIP IN2/4
BACKHAND0/3
CRADLE0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/14
DET
WRIST2/14
SNAP2/6
SLAP1/2
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND1/2
CRADLE0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/14
PHI
DET
Off the rush
2 G on 31
1.88 xG
6 G on 19
2.07 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 1
0.18 xG
0 G on 0
0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-16, DET 2-for-14. DET scored 6 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
S. Ersson
PHI · 12/14 · .857
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.6
Medium5/131.5-3.5
Low0/250.3+0.3

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

D. Vladar
PHI · 4/8 · .500
-1.8
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.6
Medium5/131.5-3.5
Low0/250.3+0.3

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

J. Gibson
DET · 13/15 · .867
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium3/131.3-1.7
Low0/380.7+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

C. Talbot
DET · 11/12 · .917
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium3/131.3-1.7
Low0/380.7+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

66 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
40 shots
3
Final
66 shots
DET
26 shots
6
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
M. Seider
#53 · D · DET
1 G · 4 A · 3 SOG · 22:06 on ice · +2
D. Larkin
#71 · C · DET
3 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:34 on ice · +2
P. Kane
#88 · R · DET
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 15:09 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 9
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:58 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 2.4 goals for each side, giving Detroit a 50% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Philadelphia is the hotter team on the scoreboard, going 7-3-0 in their last 10. Detroit has been underwater over the same stretch, minus-7 in goal differential. But the underlying metrics are tighter than the recent record suggests. Philadelphia edges Detroit in expected goals share at 51.0% to 49.0%, while Detroit's Corsi% (49.0%) nearly matches Philadelphia's 48.0%. The gap between standings and metrics? Shooting luck. Philadelphia's PDO is 1.008; Detroit's is 0.985.

The star matchup is Tippett against DeBrincat. Both generate 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes at 5-on-5 and have potted two high-danger goals this season—Tippett with 19 goals and 18 assists, DeBrincat with 17 and 28. Behind them sit Dvorak and Kasper: Dvorak has 12 goals on 0.81 xG/60 with an 11.2% shooting rate, while Kasper has seven goals on 6.1% shooting and one high-danger goal.

The kicker is how little either team has converted on high-danger chances. Philadelphia is 0% on high-danger goals and 0% on rebounds; Detroit matches that mark. Tippett and DeBrincat generate volume, but their teams haven't cashed in the premium opportunities. That drought explains the model's dead-even verdict—possession is close, metrics diverge only modestly, and neither team has solved the finish problem.

Detroit's Axel Sandin-Pellikka is a defensive weak point; Christian Dvorak plays the same role for Philadelphia. Whoever exploits those vulnerabilities will have an outsized impact on the margin.

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
7-3-0
+13 GD · 2d rest
DET
3-6-1
-7 GD · 2d 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
  • The Flyers are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
  • The Red Wings are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
2 days rest.958 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
2 days rest.914 last start
Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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
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