Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Thu, Oct 23 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at OTT

Senators hold off the Flyers

FinalThu, Oct 23
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1OTTOttawa Senators2
The verdict · stolen

The Senators stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.95–2.54 and won anyway.

PHI 1 · OTT 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:48 PMxG: 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 played better but lost 2-1 to the Senators. Ottawa's underlying numbers lagged far behind Philadelphia's: 2.54 xG to 2.95, three high-danger chances to five. The Flyers' quality advantage—0.059 xG per shot versus 0.045—should have carried them to a win, yet they scored just once.

The answer: L. Ullmark. Ottawa's goaltender stopped 22 of 23 shots (0.957 SV%), salvaging 1.95 goals above expected and posting a perfect 100% mark on five high-danger attempts. D. Vladar kept Philadelphia competitive (31 of 33, +0.54 vs expected), but Ullmark's performance decided the game.

Execution was brutal for the Flyers. Five high-danger chances yielded zero goals—an outlier they won't replicate. Ottawa proved lethal off the rush, converting twice from 20 rush attempts. Olle Lycksell's wrist shot from the slot in the second period (03:05) set the tone.

Volume told half the story. Ottawa commanded 59% of shot attempts (33–23 on goal) but didn't generate elite chances to match. Both teams chased rebound opportunities: Ottawa four (zero finished), Philadelphia three (zero finished). Neither found second chances.

This was a goaltending differential. Ullmark's 5-for-5 on high-danger shots—a perfect scoreline against quality—flipped a process edge into a result. The Flyers won't often lose a game where they held that advantage.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 23
PHI
1
OTT
2

Senators hold off the Flyers

Chances 3.0 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.95
OTT
2.54
54% of the chances46%

The board read PHI 1, OTT 2. The chances read PHI 3.0, OTT 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−0.5
goals above expected
OTT2.54 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI2.95 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers left 1.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:29PHIT. Foerster1–0
  2. P1 07:57OTTM. Amadio1–1
  3. P2 03:05OTTO. Lycksell1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
34 shots
1
Final
74 shots
OTT
40 shots
2
PHI attackOTT attack
PHI OTT Goal
34
shots · 1 in
40
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIOTT
0 / 5
1.20 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.65 xG
0 / 13
1.24 xG
Medium
2 / 11
1.31 xG
1 / 32
0.51 xG
Low
0 / 43
0.58 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
L. Ullmark
+1.9
OTT · 22/23
B
D. Vladar
+0.5
PHI · 31/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators hold off the Flyers

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 9–14
  1. 00:29PHIT. Foerster(T. Konecny, S. Couturier)1–0
  2. 07:57OTTM. Amadio(C. Giroux, A. Zub)1–1
2ndshots 7–9
  1. 03:05OTTO. Lycksell(L. Eller, N. Jensen)1–2
3rdshots 7–10no goals

    score reads PHI–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.54
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.015
    OTT puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    53.3%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.95Expected goals2.54
    PHI 54% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal33
    5High-danger chances3
    50All attempts (Corsi)57
    Adjusted for score: PHI 49% · OTT 51%
    Faceoffs · OTT won54%off54%neu29%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PHI0 / 5 · 1.20 xG
    OTT0 / 3 · 0.65 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PHI0 / 13 · 1.24 xG
    OTT2 / 11 · 1.31 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PHI1 / 32 · 0.51 xG
    OTT0 / 43 · 0.58 xG

    PHI went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.24 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PHI
    1 G · 2.95 xG · -1.9
    OTT
    2 G · 2.54 xG · -0.5
    01234

    PHI finished -1.9 against expected, OTT -0.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PHI
    WRIST1/20
    SNAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/5
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/16
    OTT
    WRIST2/28
    SNAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/2
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/17
    PHI
    OTT
    Off the rush
    1 G on 26
    2.18 xG
    2 G on 20
    1.36 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.64 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.58 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-20, OTT 2-for-28. OTT scored 2 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 · 31/33 · .939
    +0.5
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium2/111.3-0.7
    Low0/430.6+0.6

    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

    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 22/23 · .957
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.2+1.2
    Medium0/131.2+1.2
    Low1/320.5-0.5

    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

    74 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PHI
    34 shots
    1
    Final
    74 shots
    OTT
    40 shots
    2
    PHI attackOTT attack
    PHI OTT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, OTT 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
    T. Konecny
    #11 · R · PHI
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:23 on ice · -1
    S. Couturier
    #14 · C · PHI
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:13 on ice
    N. Jensen
    #3 · D · OTT
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:44 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Oct 23
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:45 PMEdited 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 model projects a 2.2–2.5 game favoring Ottawa—Senators at 56% win probability—and the underlying numbers explain why. Ottawa owns the actual play here.

    The Flyers have been sharper lately (5-4-1 in their last ten), but Philadelphia's recent pace masks the deeper story: Ottawa controls expected goals at 56.0% versus 51.0%, and territorial dominance at 53.0% Corsi versus 48.0%. That edge matters far more than a streaky ten-game run. The Senators are -20 on goal differential over their past ten, a warning sign—yet model-based projections treat PDO (puck luck) as noise. Ottawa's shooting efficiency sits below expected (PDO 0.993 versus 1.008), suggesting room for upward regression.

    Players to Watch

    Philadelphia

    • Owen Tippett — 0.88 xG/60, 19G 18A, 2 HD goals, 12.1% shooting
    • Christian Dvorak — 0.81 xG/60, 12G 21A, 3 HD goals, 11.2% shooting

    Ottawa

    • Brady Tkachuk — 1.19 xG/60, 11G 20A, 2 HD goals, 7.5% shooting
    • Dylan Cozens — 1.00 xG/60, 13G 15A, 1 HD goals, 9.5% shooting

    Tippett is the most dangerous individual on the ice, yet his 12.1% shooting rate is an outlier; Dvorak's 11.2% carries similar sustainability risk. Tkachuk generates at an elite 1.19 xG/60 on just 7.5% shooting—evidence of dominance, not a small-sample artifact. Cozens adds secondary punch with a 9.5% shooting rate that allows room to climb.

    The underlying edge is narrow but real: Ottawa's top scorers create more efficiently than Philadelphia's, and the territorial control backs it up. Expect the model's advantage to hold.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 56%
    56%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    PHI50OTT

    OTT by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PHI 2.2–2.5 OTT; 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 →OTT
    51.0%56.0%
    48.0%53.0%
    2.262.66
    2.202.12
    1.962.18
    1.821.99
    1.0080.993

    OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.993) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    PHI
    5-4-1
    +2 GD · 3d rest
    OTT
    3-6-1
    -20 GD · 2d rest
    1.008
    PHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Flyers are the hotter team by points pace (5-4-1 in their last 10).
    • The Senators are underwater at -20 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    PHI
    Expected in goal
    D. Vladar
    3 days rest.913 last start
    Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Ullmark
    2 days rest.880 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

    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
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page