Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater

Breakdown · PHI at WPG

Flyers pull away from the Jets

FinalSat, Apr 11

PHIPhiladelphia Flyers7 WPGWinnipeg Jets1

The verdict · coin flip

The Flyers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

PHI 7 · WPG 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:24 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 overwhelmed the Jets 7-1, but underlying metrics told a different story. Expected goals ran nearly even at 2.92–2.88 favoring Winnipeg, and the Jets controlled 55% of shot attempts. High-danger chances favored the visitors 4-3. Yet Philadelphia's finish was ruthless; Winnipeg's goalies couldn't hold.

D. Vladar stopped 27 of 28 shots and saved 1.92 goals above expected. The Jets' tandem cratered: E. Comrie gave up 1.62 more than expected, C. Hellebuyck 2.49. Goaltending swung the game by six-plus goals—the underlying play said this should have been close.

Philadelphia scored from low-danger areas and converted five of 22 rush attempts—a lethal clip. Nick Seeler's snap shot from the top of the circles (P3, 13:32) exemplified their precision.

S. Couturier (2G, 1A in 17:01) and N. Cates (1G, 2A in 13:33) led the onslaught. R. Ristolainen (2A in 21:45) wired the offense from the blue line.

The Jets created four rebound chances but converted just one—crashing without conviction. The Flyers also generated four rebounds and converted none. The difference wasn't net-front work. It was goalies, and goalies alone.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 11

PHI

WPG

Flyers pull away from the Jets

Chances 2.9 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Flyers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

PHI

2.88

WPG

2.92

50% of the chances50%

The board read PHI 7, WPG 1. The chances read PHI 2.9, WPG 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

PHI

+4.1

goals above expected

PHI2.88 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG2.92 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Flyers scored 4.1 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 01:17PHIP. Martone1–0
P1 06:57WPGH. Fleury1–1
P1 08:24PHIM. Michkov2–1
P1 08:49PHIS. Couturier3–1
P2 11:41PHIT. Sanheim4–1
P2 19:28PHIN. CatesSH5–1
P3 06:23PHIS. Couturier6–1

+1 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

PHI

36 shots

Final

80 shots

WPG

44 shots

PHI WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 7 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PHIWPG

1 / 4

0.98 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.59 xG

4 / 16

1.52 xG

Medium

0 / 14

1.55 xG

2 / 30

0.38 xG

Low

0 / 46

0.78 xG

High-danger looks: PHI 1 of 4, WPG 1 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

D. Vladar

+1.9

PHI · 27/28

B+

E. Comrie

+0.9

WPG · 1/3

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Flyers pull away from the Jets

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 13–10

01:17PHIP. Martone(T. Konecny)1–0
06:57WPGH. Fleury(C. Koepke, J. Toews)1–1
08:24PHIM. Michkov(N. Cates, D. Barkey)2–1
08:49PHIS. Couturier3–1

2ndshots 7–10

11:41PHIT. Sanheim(R. Ristolainen, S. Couturier)4–1
19:28PHIN. Catesshorthanded(C. Dvorak, R. Ristolainen)5–1

3rdshots 3–8

06:23PHIS. Couturier6–1
13:32PHIN. Seeler(N. Cates, M. Michkov)7–1

score reads PHI–WPG

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.88

PHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

+4.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.124

PHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

44.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.88Expected goals2.92

WPG 50% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal28

4High-danger chances3

50All attempts (Corsi)63

Adjusted for score: PHI 38% · WPG 62%

Faceoffs · WPG won55%off42%neu25%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PHI1 / 4 · 0.98 xG

WPG1 / 3 · 0.59 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PHI4 / 16 · 1.52 xG

WPG0 / 14 · 1.55 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PHI2 / 30 · 0.38 xG

WPG0 / 46 · 0.78 xG

PHI went 4-for-16 from medium danger on 1.52 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PHI

7 G · 2.88 xG · +4.1

WPG

1 G · 2.92 xG · -1.9

012345678

PHI finished +4.1 against expected, WPG -1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PHI

WRIST1/14

SNAP4/10

SLAP1/7

BACKHAND1/4

TIP IN0/1

OTHER0/14

WPG

WRIST0/16

SNAP1/10

SLAP0/7

BACKHAND0/8

TIP IN0/3

OTHER0/19

PHI

WPG

Off the rush

5 G on 22

2.06 xG

0 G on 27

1.92 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.35 xG

1 G on 4

0.43 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-14, WPG 0-for-16. PHI scored 5 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 · 27/28 · .964

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.6-0.4

Medium0/141.6+1.6

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

E. Comrie

WPG · 1/3 · .333

+0.9

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.0-0.0

Medium4/161.5-2.5

Low2/300.4-1.6

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

C. Hellebuyck

WPG · 15/20 · .750

-2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.0-0.0

Medium4/161.5-2.5

Low2/300.4-1.6

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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PHI

36 shots

Final

80 shots

WPG

44 shots

PHI WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, WPG 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

S. Couturier

#14 · C · PHI

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:01 on ice · +2

N. Cates

#27 · L · PHI

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 13:33 on ice · +3

R. Ristolainen

#55 · D · PHI

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:45 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Apr 11

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:23 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

Models project a 2.4–2.4 game with the Flyers at 50% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Philadelphia commands the underlying play. At 5v5, they post 51.0% expected goals to Winnipeg's 48.0%, creating higher-leverage chances despite slightly undershooting (Corsis of 48.0% to WPG's 49.0%). Over a season, that edge compounds; in one game, goaltending variance erases it. The Flyers' 1.008 PDO against Winnipeg's 0.998 shows their shooting luck has tracked their underlying skill.

C. Hellebuyck's back-to-back status introduces volatility. Winnipeg may start a backup or ride a fatigued starter—either path tilts the goaltending edge.

Owen Tippett powers the Flyers. At 0.88 xG/60 with 19 goals, 18 assists, and two hard-deadline goals, he's both creating elite volume and converting at a 12.1% clip—sustainable and sharp. Christian Dvorak trails in creation (0.81 xG/60) but has posted 12 goals and 21 assists with three hard-deadline goals and an 11.2% shooting mark, proving efficient within a secondary role.

Kyle Connor leads Winnipeg's charge. His 0.83 xG/60 edges below Tippett's, yet he's compiled 25 goals and 30 assists with two hard-deadline goals—his goal total padded above what his shot quality alone predicts. Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, six goals, six assists, three hard-deadline goals) carries an 8.6% shooting rate, below average, leaving variance to unfold either direction.

The split is clear: Philadelphia holds the underlying advantage in shot quality. Winnipeg counters with secondary scoring depth and the home rink. Hellebuyck's fitness is the inflection point. A rested backup might outperform a fatigued No. 1.

At exactly 50% win probability, this game has no edge. Whichever team's stars execute sharper wins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 51%

51%

PHI

Model favorite

51%

49%

PHI50WPG

PHI by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PHI 2.4–2.4 WPG; 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 →WPG

51.0%48.0%

48.0%49.0%

2.262.34

2.202.55

1.961.90

1.822.10

1.0080.998

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.998) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

PHI

6-4-0

+7 GD · 2d rest

WPG

7-2-1

+8 GD · 1d rest

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

WPG 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%.
C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

PHI

Expected in goal

S. Ersson

2 days rest.857 last start

Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

back-to-back.909 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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

WPG

Nino Niederreiter6G 6A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh

Kyle Connor25G 30A

0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page