Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
← Thu, Oct 15 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at DET

Red Wings run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Oct 15
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1DETDetroit Red Wings2
The verdict · earned

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

PHI 1 · DET 2
◆ By the ModelOct 15, 10:40 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

Detroit beat Philadelphia 2-1, and the scoreboard undersells how thoroughly the Red Wings controlled the game. Andrew Copp's third-period goal settled it.

The most striking number is the finishing. Detroit's chances were worth 4.32 expected goals, and it scored twice. Expected goals is the model's estimate of how much each shot was worth, so a gap that size points to finishing, not to a shortage of good chances.

The shot picture agrees with the result. The Red Wings took 59% of shot attempts, which counts every try at the net, on target or not. On 5-on-5 expected goals, the split was 63% to Detroit.

Philadelphia's goaltending kept the game close. J. Woll kept the Flyers in it. The model credits him with 2.32 goals more than that workload should have allowed.

M. Michkov opened the scoring for Philadelphia in the first period, on a rush shot past D. Tarasov. A. Johansson tied it for Detroit early in the second. Copp's doorstep snap shot at 15:22 of the third gave the Red Wings the lead for good.

The goals

  • PHI 1–0, 17:32 of the first. M. Michkov, snap shot from 1 feet, a 51% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Tarasov. 2 seconds after a PHI blocked shot by A. Johansson. Win probability moved 18 points.
  • DET 1–1, 04:31 of the second. A. Johansson, snap shot from 30 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Woll. Assists: D. Larkin, J. Faulk. Win probability moved 20 points.
  • DET 1–2, 15:22 of the third. A. Copp, snap shot from 8 feet, a 22% chance by the model (a rebound), past J. Woll. Assists: M. Rasmussen, N. Danielson. 2 seconds after a DET shot by M. Rasmussen. Win probability moved 37 points.

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 15
PHI
1
DET
2

Red Wings run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.54
DET
4.32
37% of the chances63%

The board read PHI 1, DET 2. The chances read PHI 2.5, DET 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
−2.3
goals above expected
DET4.32 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI2.54 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers left 1.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+37
win-probability points
53% → 89% for DET
DET 100%the game, start to finish
PHI 100%P1 · P2 · P3
DETP3 15:22

A. Copp makes it 1–2.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 17:32PHIM. Michkov51%1–0
  2. P2 04:31DETA. Johansson14%1–1
  3. P3 15:22DETA. Copp22%1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
27 shots
1
Final
74 shots
DET
47 shots
2
PHI attackDET attack
PHI DET Goal
27
shots · 1 in
47
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIDET
1 / 4
1.31 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.24 xG
0 / 8
0.80 xG
Medium
1 / 23
2.54 xG
0 / 40
0.43 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.54 xG

High-danger looks: PHI 1 of 4, DET 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Woll
+2.3
PHI · 24/26 · 59:55
Best save · a 47% chance, tip-in from 4 ft · P2 07:01
A
D. Tarasov
+1.5
DET · 17/18 · 60:00
Best save · a 39% chance, wrist from 9 ft · P3 19:52
Best skater on the ice
A+
DET
L. Raymond
L · impact 1.97
21:45
Ice time
0–0
G – A
0.55
Own xG
78%
xG share
Impact · top 4
L. Raymond2.0A+
A. Copp1.3A+
A. Johansson1.0A+
D. Larkin1.3A
Report card
PHIDET
OffenseB-A+
DefenseFC-
TransitionFA
Special teamsFD
GoaltendingA+A-
DisciplineDB
LuckB-D+
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why DET won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Won on the merits
  3. 03D. Tarasov tilted the crease
Why PHI lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03Paraded to the penalty box
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings 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 5–9
  1. 17:32PHIM. Michkov1–0

    Snap shot from 1 feet, a 51% chance (off the rush), past D. Tarasov. 2s after a PHI block. Win probability moved 18 points.On the ice: C. Dvorak, S. Benoit, T. Foerster, D. Jiricek, D. Barkey · against B. Chiarot, D. Larkin, K. Kolesar, M. Seider, N. Danielson

2ndshots 6–10
  1. 04:31DETA. Johansson(D. Larkin, J. Faulk)1–1

    Snap shot from 30 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Woll. Win probability moved 20 points.On the ice: B. Chiarot, D. Larkin, V. Arvidsson, M. Seider, L. Raymond · against S. Couturier, T. Sanheim, N. Acciari, N. Cates, D. Jiricek

3rdshots 7–7
  1. 15:22DETA. Copp(M. Rasmussen, N. Danielson)1–2

    Snap shot from 8 feet, a 22% chance (a rebound), past J. Woll. 2s after a DET shot by M. Rasmussen. Win probability moved 37 points.On the ice: A. Copp, M. Rasmussen, A. Johansson, A. Johansson, N. Danielson · against N. Seeler, M. Bunting, N. Acciari, J. Studnicka, J. Drysdale

score reads PHI–DET

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.32
DET chances
Goals their shots were worth
−2.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.011
DET puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
55.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.54Expected goals4.32
DET 63% of the chance quality
18Shots on goal26
4High-danger chances4
52All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: PHI 44% · DET 56%
Faceoffs · DET won52%off42%neu44%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI1 / 4 · 1.31 xG
DET1 / 4 · 1.24 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI0 / 8 · 0.80 xG
DET1 / 23 · 2.54 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI0 / 40 · 0.43 xG
DET0 / 39 · 0.54 xG

DET went 1-for-23 from medium danger on 2.54 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
1 G · 2.54 xG · -1.5
DET
2 G · 4.32 xG · -2.3
012345

PHI finished -1.5 against expected, DET -2.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
SNAP1/6
WRIST0/10
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/6
DEFLECTED0/2
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/25
DET
SNAP2/17
WRIST0/13
TIP IN0/12
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/19
PHI
DET
Off the rush
1 G on 19
2.15 xG
1 G on 32
3.34 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.21 xG
1 G on 4
0.64 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-6, DET 2-for-17.

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
J. Woll
PHI · 24/26 · .923
started · 59:55 · loss
+2.3
saved above expected
A
the night
Attempts faced
47
Avg chance faced
9.2%
Stopped vs expected
0.957 vs 0.908
Rebounds allowed
4 · 1 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.2+0.2
Medium1/232.5+1.5
Low0/200.5+0.5
Shorthanded0/91.5+1.5
Tips & deflections0/131.3+1.3
The save
47% chance stopped, a tip-in from 4 ft · P2 07:01
The one to have back
14% chance went in, a snap from 30 ft · P2 04:31

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. Tarasov
DET · 17/18 · .944
started · 60:00 · win
+1.5
saved above expected
A
the night
Attempts faced
27
Avg chance faced
9.4%
Stopped vs expected
0.963 vs 0.906
Rebounds allowed
2
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.3+0.3
Medium0/80.8+0.8
Low0/150.4+0.4
Shorthanded0/60.5+0.5
Tips & deflections0/40.2+0.2
The save
39% chance stopped, a wrist from 9 ft · P3 19:52
The one to have back
51% chance went in, a snap from 1 ft · P1 17:32

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: L. Raymond (DET), 21:45 of ice, 0-0, 78% of the expected goals while he was out.

PHI18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
M. MichkovR13:401-051A
O. BonkD20:000-070B
P. MartoneR12:290-038C
O. TippettR15:360-064C
C. DvorakC18:210-067C
D. BarkeyC15:280-063C
T. FoersterR17:180-068C
D.JiricekD15:290-055C
T. ZegrasC17:590-052D
M. BuntingL10:030-032D
S. BenoitD14:300-044D
T. SanheimD24:320-041D
N. CatesL13:220-030D
J. DrysdaleD22:060-028F
J. StudnickaC8:130-05F
S. CouturierC16:300-013F
N. SeelerD21:180-013F
N. AcciariC13:420-07F
DET18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
L. RaymondL21:450-078A+
A. CoppC17:481-054A+
A. JohanssonD10:341-074A+
D. LarkinC23:150-158A
A. DeBrincatR20:550-067A
V. ArvidssonL19:590-078A
M. Brandsegg-NygårdR15:070-093A
M. SeiderD25:470-062B
M. RasmussenC15:420-156B
J. FaulkD18:190-155B
N. DanielsonC13:540-142B
S. DriesC6:550-0100B
E. FinnieC16:160-065B
B. ChiarotD20:120-063C
A. JohanssonD15:030-056C
W. WallinderD16:510-052D
A. Sandin-PellikkaD7:410-038D
K. KolesarR7:570-021D

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: G. Wilson, C. York, H. Grans. Scratched, DET: A. Englund, J. Bernard-Docker, C. Mazur. Referees Pierre Lambert and Carter Sandlak; linesmen Brandon Grillo and Tyson Baker.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionPHIDET
Offense
▸Basis

PHI Created 2.54 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (1.31 xG) and 19 rush shots (2.15 xG).

DET Created 4.32 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (1.24 xG) and 32 rush shots (3.34 xG).

B-
80
A+
100
Defense
▸Basis

PHI Allowed 4.32 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (1.24 xG) and 32 rush shots (3.34 xG).

DET Allowed 2.54 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (1.31 xG) and 19 rush shots (2.15 xG).

F
48
C-
70
Transition
▸Basis

PHI Rush shots 19–32, rush xG 2.15–3.34 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

DET Rush shots 32–19, rush xG 3.34–2.15 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

F
57
A
93
Special teams
▸Basis

PHI 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.54 PP xG.

DET 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 1.51 PP xG.

F
59
D
63
Goaltending
▸Basis

PHI +2.32 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.

DET +1.54 goals saved above expected on 18 shots against.

A+
98
A-
90
Discipline
▸Basis

PHI Took 5 penalties for 10 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

DET Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 5 for 10 on the other side.

D
65
B
85
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

PHI Finishing -1.54 goals vs xG plus +2.32 GSAx of save luck = +0.78 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

DET Finishing -2.32 goals vs xG plus +1.54 GSAx of save luck = -0.78 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

B-
81
D+
69
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
STRENGTHPHI

J. Woll stole it

J. Woll stopped 24 of 26 (0.923) — +2.32 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

WARNINGPHI

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 32 rush shots worth 3.34 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHDET

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 32 rush shots worth 3.34 xG.

LUCKDET

Cold finishing night

Scored 2 on 4.32 xG — -2.32 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

WARNINGDET

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 19 rush shots worth 2.15 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 19 rush shots worth 2.15 xG.

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
27 shots
1
Final
74 shots
DET
47 shots
2
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
D. Larkin
#71 · C · DET
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:15 on ice · +1
J. Faulk
#72 · D · DET
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:19 on ice
A. Copp
#18 · C · DET
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 17:48 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page