Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a gold and black sweater
← Sat, Oct 10 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at BOS

Bruins run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Oct 10
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1BOSBoston Bruins5
The verdict · earned

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

PHI 1 · BOS 5
◆ By the ModelOct 10, 3:41 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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

Boston beat Philadelphia 5-1, and the Bruins earned the win. The score makes it look more one-sided than it was, though.

The metric that disagrees most with the scoreboard is expected goals, the model's estimate of how many goals a team's chances should have produced. At five-on-five, Boston's expected goals total was 3.72 to Philadelphia's 1.74. That is a clear edge, just a narrower one than 5-1 suggests.

Boston controlled 68% of shot attempts, which counts misses and blocks as well as shots on goal. Shots on goal were 32 to 15. Finishing made up much of the difference. Boston scored 1.28 goals more than its chances predicted, and Philadelphia scored 0.74 fewer than its chances predicted.

The turning point came late in the third period, when F. Minten's wrist shot at 15:59 made it 5-1.

Philadelphia did not score until the third period, on a P. Martone power-play goal. Boston led 3-0 before that. Transition was the story. Boston scored 4 goals on 36 rush chances, and Philadelphia's defense left gaps in transition in every period.

D. Vladar stopped 27 of 32 shots for Philadelphia, but he allowed more goals than that workload should have allowed. The model put that gap at 1.28 goals. J. Swayman stopped 14 of 15 for Boston and saved more than expected.

The goals

  • BOS 0–1, 12:21 of the first. P. Zacha, wrist shot from 40 feet, a 5% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Assists: D. Pastrnak. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • BOS 0–2, 17:12 of the second. M. Lohrei, wrist shot from 33 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Assists: J. Peterka, F. Minten. 9 seconds after a PHI shot by D. Jiricek. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • BOS 0–3, 01:55 of the third. M. Khusnutdinov, wrist shot from 11 feet, a 20% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Assists: F. Minten, W. Borgen. Win probability moved 5 points.
  • PHI 1–3, 06:32 of the third on the power play. P. Martone, wrist shot from 23 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Swayman. Assists: D. Jiricek, D. Barkey.
  • BOS 1–4, 09:21 of the third. C. Mittelstadt, wrist shot from 7 feet, a 14% chance by the model, past D. Vladar. Assists: E. Lindholm, J. Hagens. 5 seconds after a PHI giveaway by S. Benoit.
  • BOS 1–5, 15:59 of the third. F. Minten, wrist shot from 12 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Assists: J. Peterka, H. Lindholm. 5 seconds after a PHI hit by T. Sanheim. T. Sanheim was 49 seconds into his shift for the defending side.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 10
PHI
1
BOS
5

Bruins run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.7 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Bruins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
1.74
BOS
3.72
32% of the chances68%

The board read PHI 1, BOS 5. The chances read PHI 1.7, BOS 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BOS
+1.3
goals above expected
BOS3.72 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI1.74 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+16
win-probability points
54% → 70% for BOS
BOS 100%the game, start to finish
PHI 100%P1 · P2 · P3
BOSP1 12:21

P. Zacha makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 12:21BOSP. Zacha5%0–1
  2. P2 17:12BOSM. Lohrei10%0–2
  3. P3 01:55BOSM. Khusnutdinov20%0–3
  4. P3 06:32PHIP. MartonePP11%1–3
  5. P3 09:21BOSC. Mittelstadt14%1–4
  6. P3 15:59BOSF. Minten11%1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
28 shots
1
Final
74 shots
BOS
46 shots
5
PHI attackBOS attack
PHI BOS Goal
28
shots · 1 in
46
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIBOS
0 / 2
0.37 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.39 xG
1 / 11
1.12 xG
Medium
3 / 28
2.93 xG
0 / 24
0.25 xG
Low
1 / 34
0.39 xG

High-danger looks: PHI 0 of 2, BOS 1 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
J. Swayman
+0.7
BOS · 14/15 · 59:30
Best save · a 19% chance, wrist from 10 ft · P1 06:40
D-
D. Vladar
−1.3
PHI · 27/32 · 60:00
Best save · a 20% chance, snap from 17 ft · P3 05:20
Best skater on the ice
A+
BOS
F. Minten
C · impact 2.43
14:25
Ice time
1–2
G – A
0.37
Own xG
75%
xG share
Impact · top 4
F. Minten2.4A+
J. Peterka1.9A+
J. Hagens1.5A+
D. Pastrnak1.7A
Report card
PHIBOS
OffenseD+A
DefenseFB
TransitionFA+
Special teamsBF
GoaltendingD-B-
DisciplineB-C-
LuckFA-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why BOS won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Won on the merits
  3. 03F. Minten led the way
Why PHI lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02D. Vladar gave one back
  3. 03PDO ran cold
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Bruins run the Flyers 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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 3–12
  1. 12:21BOSP. Zacha(D. Pastrnak)0–1

    Wrist shot from 40 feet, a 5% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: H. Lindholm, W. Borgen, J. Peterka, M. Khusnutdinov, F. Minten · against G. Wilson, M. Bunting, N. Acciari, S. Benoit, H. Grans

2ndshots 5–10
  1. 17:12BOSM. Lohrei(J. Peterka, F. Minten)0–2

    Wrist shot from 33 feet, a 10% chance (off the rush), past D. Vladar. 9s after a PHI shot by D. Jiricek. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: H. Lindholm, E. Lindholm, W. Borgen, C. Mittelstadt, J. Hagens · against N. Seeler, N. Cates, H. Grans, D. Barkey, P. Martone

3rdshots 7–10
  1. 01:55BOSM. Khusnutdinov(F. Minten, W. Borgen)0–3

    Wrist shot from 11 feet, a 20% chance (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Win probability moved 5 points.On the ice: C. Clifton, E. Lindholm, N. Zadorov, C. Mittelstadt, J. Hagens · against N. Seeler, T. Zegras, H. Grans, M. Michkov, P. Martone

  2. 06:32PHIP. Martonepower play(D. Jiricek, D. Barkey)1–3

    Wrist shot from 23 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past J. Swayman.On the ice: T. Sanheim, C. Dvorak, J. Drysdale, T. Foerster, D. Barkey · against T. Jeannot, M. Kastelic, M. Lohrei, F. Brunet, M. Poitras

  3. 09:21BOSC. Mittelstadt(E. Lindholm, J. Hagens)1–4

    Wrist shot from 7 feet, a 14% chance, past D. Vladar. 5s after a PHI giveaway by S. Benoit.On the ice: D. Pastrnak, P. Zacha, M. Geekie, M. Lohrei, F. Brunet · against G. Wilson, N. Seeler, M. Bunting, N. Acciari, D. Jiricek

  4. 15:59BOSF. Minten(J. Peterka, H. Lindholm)1–5

    Wrist shot from 12 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past D. Vladar. 5s after a PHI hit by T. Sanheim. T. Sanheim was 49s into his shift for the defending side.

score reads PHI–BOS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.72
BOS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.051
BOS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
63.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.74Expected goals3.72
BOS 68% of the chance quality
15Shots on goal32
2High-danger chances2
37All attempts (Corsi)64
Adjusted for score: PHI 41% · BOS 59%
Faceoffs · BOS won75%off47%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI0 / 2 · 0.37 xG
BOS1 / 2 · 0.39 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI1 / 11 · 1.12 xG
BOS3 / 28 · 2.93 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI0 / 24 · 0.25 xG
BOS1 / 34 · 0.39 xG

BOS went 1-for-2 from high danger on 0.39 expected goals — 0.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
1 G · 1.74 xG · -0.7
BOS
5 G · 3.72 xG · +1.3
0123456

PHI finished -0.7 against expected, BOS +1.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
WRIST1/21
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/2
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
BOS
WRIST5/24
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND0/5
SNAP0/6
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/18
PHI
BOS
Off the rush
1 G on 23
1.71 xG
4 G on 36
3.24 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 2
0.19 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-21, BOS 5-for-24. BOS scored 4 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 · 27/32 · .844
started · 60:00 · loss
-1.3
saved above expected
D-
the night
Attempts faced
46
Avg chance faced
8.1%
Stopped vs expected
0.891 vs 0.919
Rebounds allowed
2
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.4-0.6
Medium3/282.9-0.1
Low1/160.4-0.6
Tips & deflections0/30.2+0.2
The save
20% chance stopped, a snap from 17 ft · P3 05:20
The one to have back
5% chance went in, a wrist from 40 ft · P1 12:21

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. Swayman
BOS · 14/15 · .933
started · 59:30 · win
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
Attempts faced
28
Avg chance faced
6.2%
Stopped vs expected
0.964 vs 0.938
Rebounds allowed
0
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium1/111.1+0.1
Low0/150.3+0.3
Shorthanded1/20.1-0.8
Tips & deflections0/10.1+0.1
The save
19% chance stopped, a wrist from 10 ft · P1 06:40
The one to have back
11% chance went in, a wrist from 23 ft · P3 06:32

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: F. Minten (BOS), 14:25 of ice, 1-2, 75% of the expected goals while he was out.

PHI18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
P. MartoneR15:181-051B
D.JiricekD17:460-129B
D. BarkeyC13:510-143B
N. CatesL10:570-059C
J. DrysdaleD24:580-039C
O. TippettR17:180-031C
S. BenoitD13:370-036C
T. SanheimD28:510-038D
C. DvorakC17:250-037D
M. BuntingL13:360-030D
T. ZegrasC15:530-040D
N. SeelerD20:190-027D
S. CouturierC16:090-032D
M. MichkovR15:350-018D
H. GransD12:260-029F
G. WilsonL11:460-04F
T. FoersterR16:150-026F
N. AcciariC12:440-04F
BOS18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
F. MintenC14:251-275A+
J. PeterkaR14:020-276A+
J. HagensC14:480-178A+
D. PastrnakR19:290-177A
C. MittelstadtC14:251-077A
M. KhusnutdinovC13:271-082A
E. LindholmC13:470-185A
M. LohreiD17:411-064A
P. ZachaC19:161-077B
N. ZadorovD22:370-073B
M. GeekieC16:400-083B
H. LindholmD18:280-155B
C. CliftonD22:480-078C
W. BorgenD18:130-161C
F. BrunetD18:250-062C
M. KastelicC11:240-019C
M. PoitrasC12:140-019D
T. JeannotL12:490-019F

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, PHI: T. Konecny, C. Grundstrom, C. York. Scratched, BOS: S. Kuraly, C. McAvoy, J. Aspirot. Referees Thomas John Luxmore and Alex Lepkowski; linesmen Joe Mahon and Jeremy Faucher.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionPHIBOS
Offense
▸Basis

PHI Created 1.74 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.37 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.71 xG).

BOS Created 3.72 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.39 xG) and 36 rush shots (3.24 xG).

D+
67
A
93
Defense
▸Basis

PHI Allowed 3.72 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.39 xG) and 36 rush shots (3.24 xG).

BOS Allowed 1.74 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.37 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.71 xG).

F
57
B
83
Transition
▸Basis

PHI Rush shots 23–36, rush xG 1.71–3.24 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

BOS Rush shots 36–23, rush xG 3.24–1.71 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

F
53
A+
97
Special teams
▸Basis

PHI 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 0.15 PP xG.

BOS 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.00 PP xG.

B
83
F
48
Goaltending
▸Basis

PHI -1.28 goals saved above expected on 32 shots against.

BOS +0.74 goals saved above expected on 15 shots against.

D-
62
B-
82
Discipline
▸Basis

PHI Took 4 penalties for 16 PIM vs 5 for 18 on the other side.

BOS Took 5 penalties for 18 PIM vs 4 for 16 on the other side.

B-
80
C-
70
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

PHI Finishing -0.74 goals vs xG plus -1.28 GSAx of save luck = -2.02 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

BOS Finishing +1.28 goals vs xG plus +0.74 GSAx of save luck = +2.02 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

F
59
A-
91
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGPHI

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 36 rush shots worth 3.24 xG (4 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHBOS

Dangerous off the rush

4 goals on 36 rush shots worth 3.24 xG.

STRENGTHBOS

Won on the merits

The Bruins controlled 68% of expected goals (3.72–1.74) and won 5-1 — result matched process.

WARNINGBOS

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 23 rush shots worth 1.71 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHPHI

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 23 rush shots worth 1.71 xG.

STRENGTHBOS

F. Minten led the way

1G 2A in 14:25 — the game's first star.

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
28 shots
1
Final
74 shots
BOS
46 shots
5
PHI attackBOS attack
PHI BOS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, BOS 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
F. Minten
#93 · C · BOS
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 14:25 on ice · +3
J. Peterka
#10 · R · BOS
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 14:02 on ice · +3
D. Pastrnak
#88 · R · BOS
0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:29 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page