Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater

Breakdown · BOS at PHI · Preseason

Flyers shut out the Bruins, 2-0

FinalThu, Sep 24

BOSBoston Bruins0 PHIPhiladelphia Flyers2

The verdict · earned

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

BOS 0 · PHI 2

Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 26, 12:57 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Raw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Flyers beat the Bruins 2-0 and the underlying numbers backed it up — they controlled 66% of 5v5 expected goals (5.00–2.62).

The numbers behind the result. The Flyers held 50% of shot attempts (28–28 on goal). Expected goals finished 5.00–2.62 (66–34% split), and high-danger chances went 7–3.

Variance watch. The Flyers underperformed their xG by 3.00 goals; the Bruins underperformed theirs by 2.62.

Turning point. Cole Knuble's backhander from the doorstep (P3, 02:57).

The goals

PHI 0–1, 04:02 of the first. M. Michkov, backhander from 7 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past M. DiPietro. Assists: P. Martone, H. Grans. Win probability moved 14 points.
PHI 0–2, 02:57 of the third. C. Knuble, backhander from 1 feet, a 32% chance by the model (a rebound), past M. DiPietro. Assists: J. Gaucher, J. Luchanko. 2 seconds after a PHI shot by J. Gaucher. Win probability moved 14 points.

Goaltending

M. DiPietro (BOS): 26/28 saves, 0.929 SV% (+3.00 vs expected)
J. Woll (PHI): 28/28 saves, 1.000 SV% (+2.62 vs expected)

Storylines

BOS generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
M. DiPietro (BOS) stopped 3.0 goals above expected.
PHI generated far more dangerous chances — 0.082 xG/shot vs 0.052. Quality over quantity.
PHI created 5 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
PHI underperformed xG by 3.0 — wasted quality chances.
BOS underperformed xG by 2.6 — wasted quality chances.
M. DiPietro (BOS) saved 1.6 goals above expected — stole the show.
J. Woll (PHI) saved 2.6 goals above expected — stole the show.

Final: BOS 0 – PHI 2

Data: NHL play-by-play and shift charts, Backcheck xG model

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Preseason · Sep 24

BOS

PHI

Flyers shut out the Bruins, 2-0

Chances 2.6 – 5.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

BOS

2.62

PHI

5.00

34% of the chances66%

The board read BOS 0, PHI 2. The chances read BOS 2.6, PHI 5.0.

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

Luck check

PHI

−3.0

goals above expected

PHI5.00 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

BOS2.62 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Bruins left 2.6 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

The swing

+14

win-probability points

54% → 68% for PHI

PHI 100%the game, start to finish

BOS 100%P1 · P2 · P3

PHIP1 04:02

M. Michkov makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games

Every goal, in order

P1 04:02PHIM. Michkov14%0–1
P3 02:57PHIC. Knuble32%0–2

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

Where the shots came from

BOS

38 shots

Final

82 shots

PHI

44 shots

BOS PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 0 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BOSPHI

0 / 3

0.61 xG

High danger

1 / 7

2.62 xG

0 / 15

1.55 xG

Medium

1 / 18

2.00 xG

0 / 32

0.45 xG

Low

0 / 36

0.38 xG

The Bruins went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

J. Woll

+2.6

PHI · 28/28 · 60:00

Best save · a 23% chance, backhand from 6 ft · P3 18:36

M. DiPietro

+1.6

BOS · 26/28 · 57:50

Best save · a 30% chance, snap from 12 ft · P3 06:05

Best skater on the ice

A+

PHI

J. Gaucher

C · impact 1.74

10:39

Ice time

0–1

G – A

0.69

Own xG

81%

xG share

Impact · top 4

J. Gaucher1.7A+

C. Knuble1.4A+

M. Michkov1.3A+

J. Luchanko1.0A

Report card

BOSPHI

OffenseC+A+

DefenseFC

TransitionDB+

Special teamsFF

GoaltendingA+A+

DisciplineB-C-

LuckC+C-

Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown

Why it went the way it went

Why PHI won

01J. Woll stole it
02Dangerous off the rush
03Won on the merits

Why BOS lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Cold finishing night
03Rebound control was shaky

Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Flyers shut out the Bruins, 2-0

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 / 12 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 5–15

04:02PHIM. Michkov(P. Martone, H. Grans)0–1
Backhander from 7 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past M. DiPietro. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: T. Zegras, C. York, J. Drysdale, T. Foerster, P. Martone · against M. Eyssimont, J. Aspirot, J. Schmaltz, B. Sweezey, A. Biasca

2ndshots 14–7no goals

3rdshots 9–6

02:57PHIC. Knuble(J. Gaucher, J. Luchanko)0–2
Backhander from 1 feet, a 32% chance (a rebound), past M. DiPietro. 2s after a PHI shot by J. Gaucher. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: S. Benoit, J. Gaucher, J. Drysdale, C. Knuble, J. Luchanko · against S. Kuraly, C. McAvoy, R. Duran, A. Steeves, F. Brunet

score reads BOS–PHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.00

PHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

−3.0

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.033

PHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

55.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.62Expected goals5.00

PHI 66% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal28

3High-danger chances7

50All attempts (Corsi)61

Adjusted for score: BOS 50% · PHI 50%

Faceoffs · PHI won58%off67%neu52%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BOS0 / 3 · 0.61 xG

PHI1 / 7 · 2.62 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BOS0 / 15 · 1.55 xG

PHI1 / 18 · 2.00 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BOS0 / 32 · 0.45 xG

PHI0 / 36 · 0.38 xG

PHI went 1-for-7 from high danger on 2.62 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BOS

0 G · 2.62 xG · -2.6

PHI

2 G · 5.00 xG · -3.0

0123456

BOS finished -2.6 against expected, PHI -3.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BOS

WRIST0/14

SNAP0/11

SLAP0/9

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/12

PHI

WRIST0/24

SNAP0/6

SLAP0/7

BACKHAND2/5

TIP IN0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/17

BOS

PHI

Off the rush

0 G on 28

1.96 xG

1 G on 23

3.42 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.18 xG

1 G on 5

0.63 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BOS went 0-for-14, PHI 0-for-24.

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

M. DiPietro

BOS · 26/28 · .929

started · 57:50 · loss

+1.6

saved above expected

the night

Attempts faced: 41
Avg chance faced: 8.8%
Stopped vs expected: 0.951 vs 0.912
Rebounds allowed: 5 · 1 scored on

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium1/182.0+1.0

Low0/180.4+0.4

Shorthanded0/20.2+0.2

Tips & deflections0/20.2+0.2

The save

30% chance stopped, a snap from 12 ft · P3 06:05

The one to have back

14% chance went in, a backhand from 7 ft · P1 04:02

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. Woll

PHI · 28/28 · 1.000

started · 60:00 · win

+2.6

saved above expected

A+

the night

Attempts faced: 38
Avg chance faced: 6.9%
Stopped vs expected: 1.000 vs 0.931
Rebounds allowed: 2

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.6+0.6

Medium0/151.6+1.6

Low0/200.5+0.5

Shorthanded0/100.9+0.9

Tips & deflections0/10.0+0.0

The save

23% chance stopped, a backhand from 6 ft · P3 18:36

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

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: J. Gaucher (PHI), 10:39 of ice, 0-1, 81% of the expected goals while he was out.

BOS18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
J. HagensC	20:36	0-0	5	0.63	43	0/0	0.34	0.98	C
J. HarrisD	20:49	0-0	2	0.18	47	0/0	0.25	0.72	C
B. HalonenL	12:07	0-0	1	0.20	49	1/1	0.20	0.98	C
H. JokiharjuD	19:49	0-0	2	0.05	43	0/0	0.08	0.24	C
D. LocmelisC	18:49	0-0	4	0.38	39	0/0	0.06	0.18	C
M. EyssimontC	15:44	0-0	3	0.19	38	0/0	0.05	0.20	D
F. BrunetD	18:27	0-0	3	0.09	35	1/1	0.04	0.12	D
J. SchmaltzL	11:03	0-0	0	0.00	45	0/0	-0.06	-0.33	D
A. SteevesC	16:47	0-0	1	0.10	34	0/0	-0.16	-0.57	D
C. McAvoyD	22:35	0-0	3	0.35	36	0/0	-0.27	-0.72	D
B. SweezeyD	16:03	0-0	1	0.07	17	0/0	-0.28	-1.06	D
I. IvanC	14:45	0-0	1	0.04	24	0/0	-0.28	-1.15	D
L. ReichelL	18:08	0-0	0	0.00	38	0/0	-0.41	-1.36	D
B. GaunceC	13:33	0-0	0	0.04	21	0/0	-0.39	-1.72	F
S. KuralyC	15:51	0-0	1	0.14	20	0/0	-0.47	-1.79	F
J. AspirotD	15:57	0-0	0	0.00	12	0/0	-0.48	-1.81	F
R. DuranC	14:27	0-0	1	0.03	11	0/0	-0.47	-1.94	F
A. BiascaC	12:40	0-0	0	0.12	30	0/0	-0.47	-2.22	F

PHI18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
J. GaucherC	10:39	0-1	3	0.69	81	0/0	1.74	9.81	A+
C. KnubleR	10:43	1-0	1	0.32	81	0/0	1.39	7.80	A+
M. MichkovR	18:16	1-0	3	0.51	61	0/0	1.35	4.42	A+
J. LuchankoC	10:18	0-1	1	0.30	82	0/1	1.04	6.06	A
N. AcciariC	14:32	0-0	2	1.20	70	0/0	1.05	4.33	A
P. MartoneR	16:13	0-1	1	0.16	63	0/0	0.99	3.65	A
R. RistolainenD	24:06	0-0	2	0.07	77	0/0	1.01	2.53	A
T. SanheimD	26:47	0-0	1	0.12	72	0/0	0.91	2.04	A
C. DvorakC	16:27	0-0	3	0.52	62	0/0	0.75	2.75	B
S. BenoitD	17:16	0-0	4	0.08	69	1/1	0.70	2.44	B
H. GransD	1:29	0-1	2	0.07	100	0/0	0.83	—	B
S. CouturierC	16:50	0-0	0	0.00	72	1/0	0.60	2.14	B
C. YorkD	24:23	0-0	1	0.04	55	0/0	0.51	1.26	B
T. ZegrasC	18:30	0-0	0	0.68	65	0/1	0.46	1.48	B
J. DrysdaleD	22:34	0-0	2	0.10	56	0/0	0.38	1.01	B
N. GrebenkinR	12:40	0-0	0	0.00	63	0/0	0.29	1.40	C
T. FoersterR	17:11	0-0	2	0.15	57	0/0	0.29	1.00	C
T. KonecnyR	15:06	0-0	0	0.00	51	1/0	0.17	0.69	C

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, BOS: H. Lindholm, C. Clifton, E. Lindholm, N. Zadorov, D. Pastrnak, P. Zacha and 47 more. Scratched, PHI: G. Wilson, N. Seeler, D. Vladar, M. Tomek, C. Grundstrom, O. Tippett and 26 more. Referees Jon McIsaac and Alex Lepkowski; linesmen Tommy Hughes and Dan Kelly.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionBOSPHI

Offense

▸Basis

BOS Created 2.62 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.61 xG) and 28 rush shots (1.96 xG).

PHI Created 5.00 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 7 high-danger shots (2.62 xG) and 23 rush shots (3.42 xG).

C+

A+

100

Defense

▸Basis

BOS Allowed 5.00 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 7 high-danger shots (2.62 xG) and 23 rush shots (3.42 xG).

PHI Allowed 2.62 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.61 xG) and 28 rush shots (1.96 xG).

Transition

▸Basis

BOS Rush shots 28–23, rush xG 1.96–3.42 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

PHI Rush shots 23–28, rush xG 3.42–1.96 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

B+

Special teams

▸Basis

BOS 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.42 PP xG.

PHI 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.19 PP xG.

Goaltending

▸Basis

BOS +3.00 goals saved above expected on 28 shots against.

PHI +2.62 goals saved above expected on 28 shots against.

A+

100

A+

100

Discipline

▸Basis

BOS Took 3 penalties for 9 PIM vs 4 for 11 on the other side.

PHI Took 4 penalties for 11 PIM vs 3 for 9 on the other side.

B-

C-

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

BOS Finishing -2.62 goals vs xG plus +3.00 GSAx of save luck = +0.38 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

PHI Finishing -3.00 goals vs xG plus +2.62 GSAx of save luck = -0.38 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C+

C-

Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately

What the model flagged

STRENGTHBOS

M. DiPietro stole it

M. DiPietro stopped 26 of 28 (0.929) — +3.00 goals saved above expected in a 2-goal game.

STRENGTHPHI

J. Woll stole it

J. Woll stopped 28 of 28 (1.000) — +2.62 goals saved above expected in a 2-goal game.

WARNINGBOS

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 23 rush shots worth 3.42 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

LUCKPHI

Cold finishing night

Scored 2 on 5.00 xG — -3.00 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

STRENGTHPHI

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 23 rush shots worth 3.42 xG.

LUCKBOS

Cold finishing night

Scored 0 on 2.62 xG — -2.62 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BOS

38 shots

Final

82 shots

PHI

44 shots

BOS PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BOS 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

M. Michkov

#39 · R · PHI

1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 18:16 on ice · +1

P. Martone

#94 · R · PHI

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 16:13 on ice · +1

C. Knuble

#54 · R · PHI

1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 10:43 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page