Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Sat, Nov 8 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at PHI

Senators edge the Flyers in overtime

Final / OTSat, Nov 8
OTTOttawa Senators3PHIPhiladelphia Flyers2
The verdict · coin flip

The Senators won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

OTT 3 · PHI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:04 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

Philadelphia dominated possession but couldn't convert: the Flyers held 61% of shot attempts (22–14 on goal), yet Tim Stützle won it 3–2 in overtime for Ottawa. Expected goals nearly mirrored the shot split—2.77 for the Flyers, 2.71 for the Senators—but scoreline rarely flows from volume alone.

Shot quality did. Ottawa's attempts generated 0.070 xG per shot; Philadelphia's, just 0.050. The Flyers held more high-danger chances (6–5) but couldn't capitalize. That's where goaltending enters: L. Ullmark stopped 20 of 22 for Ottawa (+0.77 vs expected), while S. Ersson allowed 3 on 14 (0.786 SV%). Ullmark's overperformance absorbed all of Philadelphia's underperformance—the Flyers were 0.77 goals worse than their xG line suggested.

The rush was the lone category where possession translated cleanly. Ottawa scored three times on 23 rush chances; Philadelphia twice on 25. It wasn't a gap—it was the difference.

Tim Stützle's snap from the doorstep at 03:19 of overtime ended it. Quality over volume—a recurring theme in a game where the shot count lied.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 8
OTT
3
PHI
2

Senators edge the Flyers in overtime

Chances 2.7 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Senators took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
2.71
PHI
2.77
50% of the chances51%

The board read OTT 3, PHI 2. The chances read OTT 2.7, PHI 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+0.3
goals above expected
OTT2.71 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI2.77 expected · 2 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
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:14OTTT. Stützle1–0
  2. P1 06:19OTTM. Amadio2–0
  3. P2 11:23PHIM. Michkov2–1
  4. P3 09:55PHIJ. Drysdale2–2
  5. OT 03:19OTTT. Stützle3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
29 shots
3
Final
65 shots
PHI
36 shots
2
OTT attackPHI attack
OTT PHI Goal
29
shots · 3 in
36
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTPHI
1 / 5
1.34 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.45 xG
2 / 9
0.99 xG
Medium
1 / 8
0.77 xG
0 / 25
0.38 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.55 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 1 of 5, PHI 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
L. Ullmark
+0.8
OTT · 20/22
D
S. Ersson
−0.3
PHI · 11/14
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators edge the Flyers in overtime

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 6–4
  1. 05:14OTTT. Stützle(D. Perron, R. Greig)1–0
  2. 06:19OTTM. Amadio(C. Giroux, S. Pinto)2–0
2ndshots 6–10
  1. 11:23PHIM. Michkov(C. Dvorak, T. Konecny)2–1
3rdshots 1–8
  1. 09:55PHIJ. Drysdale(C. Dvorak, T. Zegras)2–2
OTshots 1–0
  1. 03:19OTTT. Stützle(D. Batherson, T. Chabot)3–2

score reads OTT–PHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.71
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.041
OTT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.71Expected goals2.77
PHI 51% of the chance quality
14Shots on goal22
5High-danger chances6
39All attempts (Corsi)56
Adjusted for score: OTT 37% · PHI 63%
Faceoffs · PHI won53%off42%neu41%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT1 / 5 · 1.34 xG
PHI1 / 6 · 1.45 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT2 / 9 · 0.99 xG
PHI1 / 8 · 0.77 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT0 / 25 · 0.38 xG
PHI0 / 42 · 0.55 xG

OTT went 2-for-9 from medium danger on 0.99 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
3 G · 2.71 xG · +0.3
PHI
2 G · 2.77 xG · -0.8
01234

OTT finished +0.3 against expected, PHI -0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
SNAP1/18
WRIST0/1
SLAP1/3
BACKHAND1/4
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/10
PHI
SNAP2/18
WRIST0/8
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/20
OTT
PHI
Off the rush
3 G on 23
2.41 xG
2 G on 25
2.19 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.23 xG
0 G on 1
0.23 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-18, PHI 2-for-18. OTT scored 3 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
L. Ullmark
OTT · 20/22 · .909
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.4+0.5
Medium1/80.8-0.2
Low0/420.6+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

S. Ersson
PHI · 11/14 · .786
-0.3
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.3+0.3
Medium2/91.0-1.0
Low0/250.4+0.4

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

65 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
29 shots
3
Final
65 shots
PHI
36 shots
2
OTT attackPHI attack
OTT PHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
T. Stützle
#18 · C · OTT
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 18:26 on ice · +2
C. Dvorak
#22 · C · PHI
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:51 on ice · +1
J. Drysdale
#9 · D · PHI
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 24:35 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 8
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:02 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 2.4-2.3 Senators win with Ottawa at 52% win probability — this is essentially a pick'em.

Ottawa owns the underlying play, controlling 56.0% expected goals against Philadelphia's 51.0%. That edge extends to territory: the Senators drive the puck at 53.0% Corsi, so they should spend most of the night in the Flyers' end. The catch is finishing. Ottawa's PDO of 0.993 suggests their actual goals have trailed their shot quality, while Philadelphia's 1.008 indicates they've gotten fortunate on the other end.

Goaltending uncertainty adds noise. D. Vladar and L. Ullmark both work back-to-backs, which could push either team toward a backup or force a tired starter into duty — a variable that reshapes the game's tempo.

Brady Tkachuk anchors Ottawa's attack at 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes: 11 goals, 20 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 7.5% shooting rate. He's generating premium looks and converting them at a healthy clip. Dylan Cozens supplies secondary scoring at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals, 15 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and a 9.5% shooting rate — efficiency above his volume.

For Philadelphia, Owen Tippett leads with 19 goals, 18 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and a 12.1% shooting rate on just 0.88 xG/60 — he's finding soft ice on modest shot volume. Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 21 assists, 3 high-danger goals, 11.2% shooting) rounds out the secondary core.

Nick Jensen represents Ottawa's defensive weak point; Christian Dvorak serves that role for Philadelphia.

Neither team has posted above-expected rates on high-danger or rebound goals this season, meaning both rely on the pace and puck placement that generated chances in the first place.

Ottawa's superior underlying numbers favor the Senators. But Philadelphia at home carries real weight, and the goaltending lottery adds variance neither team controls. Expect the team that manages its game cleaner to win.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 52%
52%
OTT
Model favorite
52%
48%
OTT50PHI

OTT by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 2.4–2.3 PHI; 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
OTT← edge
edge →PHI
56.0%51.0%
53.0%48.0%
2.662.26
2.122.20
2.181.96
1.991.82
0.9931.008

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
OTT
5-2-3
+6 GD · 1d rest
PHI
7-3-0
+7 GD · 1d rest
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.008
PHI 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.
  • D. Vladar is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • L. Ullmark is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
back-to-back.880 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
back-to-back.958 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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
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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page