Backcheck
Recap · STL at PHI

Flyers edge the Blues in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 11, 4:57 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
STL
St. Louis Blues
2
Home
PHI
Philadelphia Flyers
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.82Expected goals3.38
55% share for the better side
29Shot attempts (SOG)28
7High-danger chances5
49Corsi (all attempts)64
Score-adjusted: 39% / 61%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Blues created seven high-danger chances to Philadelphia's five but couldn't finish, losing 3-2 in overtime. D. Vladar's 0.931 save percentage—a +0.82 overperformance against expected goals—locked down the most dangerous looks, while the Flyers converted when it mattered most.

Expected goals favored Philadelphia only slightly: 3.38 to 2.82. But the goal split tells a sharper story. St. Louis was 0-for-7 on high-danger chances, missing looks that would have shifted the game. Philadelphia was ruthless: 2-for-5 on dangerous chances and lethal on the rush, scoring three times on 35 transition opportunities. Vladar didn't allow a single high-danger chance to reach the back of the net.

Travis Sanheim's snap shot from the high slot at 03:51 of overtime ended it. J. Hofer made 25 of 28 shots (0.893 SV%); Vladar made 27 of 29 (0.931 SV%). The difference decided the game.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL0 / 7 · 1.45 xG
PHI2 / 5 · 1.22 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL1 / 7 · 0.80 xG
PHI0 / 13 · 1.31 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL1 / 35 · 0.57 xG
PHI1 / 46 · 0.85 xG

STL went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.45 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
2 G · 2.82 xG · -0.8
PHI
3 G · 3.38 xG · -0.4
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. HoferSTL
+0.4
D. VladarPHI
+0.8

STL finished -0.8 against expected, PHI -0.4 — D. Vladar (PHI) saved 0.8 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST0/20
SNAP1/6
TIP IN0/4
SLAP1/2
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/14
PHI
WRIST0/19
SNAP2/14
TIP IN0/4
SLAP1/4
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/18
STL
PHI
Off the rush
1 G on 24 · 2.35 xG
3 G on 35 · 2.75 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1 · 0.23 xG
0 G on 1 · 0.09 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-20, PHI 0-for-19. PHI scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Faulk
#72 · D · STL
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 24:59 TOI
T. Konecny
#11 · R · PHI
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:19 TOI · +2
T. Sanheim
#6 · D · PHI
1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 26:13 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • PHI was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/5 on HD chances (40%).
  • STL couldn't convert — 0/7 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • PHI was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 35 rush chances.
  • D. Vladar was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 7 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · STL at PHI · 7:00 PM ET

Blues at Flyers: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 4:54 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
PHI
Model favorite
47%
53%
STL50PHI

PHI by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.32.5 PHI; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

STL← edge
edge →PHI
49.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
48.0%Corsi%48.0%
2.34xGF / 602.26
2.40xGA / 602.20
2.00Goals for / gm1.96
2.12Goals against / gm1.82
1.000PDO — luck, not skill1.008

PHI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.000 vs 1.008) says PHI has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.3-2.5 goal game with the Flyers at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

St. Louis carries a -8 goal differential over their last 10 games, a sign that regression often follows. The underlying talent, though, looks remarkably balanced: the Blues post a 49.0% expected-goals share against Philadelphia's 51.0%, both sit 48.0% in Corsi, and neither has been lucky or unlucky at the rate of play—St. Louis at 1.000 PDO, the Flyers at 1.008. The model's toss-up verdict is earned.

The Flyers own a rest advantage: four days off to St. Louis's one. In a dead-even matchup, that gap matters.

J. Binnington takes the back-to-back for the Blues—a detail that could force either a backup appearance or a fatigued starter.

For the actual matchup, watch Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15G, 22A, 11.9% shooting) and Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13G, 24A, 10.8% shooting) drive the St. Louis attack. Snuggerud's two high-danger goals suggest he's hunting the dangerous areas. Owen Tippett (0.88 xG/60, 19G, 18A, 12.1% shooting) leads the Flyers, while Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12G, 21A, 11.2% shooting) operates at the margins. Three of Dvorak's 12 goals have come from high-danger areas—that concentration tends to regress.

In the end, the model is correct: it's a coin flip between two evenly-matched teams, separated only by rest and goaltending randomness.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters