Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
← Tue, Jan 6 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at PHI

Flyers run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Jan 6
ANAAnaheim Ducks2PHIPhiladelphia Flyers5
The verdict · earned

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

ANA 2 · PHI 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:25 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

L. Dostal out-performed expectations by 1.05 goals, yet still lost 5–2. Philadelphia's dominance showed up in every underlying metric: 70% of expected goals (5.05–2.19) and 68% of shot attempts.

The Flyers' offense operated on a different plane. They generated far more dangerous chances—averaging 0.074 expected goals per shot versus Anaheim's 0.038—a clinical superiority in threat creation. Philadelphia scored three times from low-danger areas, chances a goaltender must stop. Off the rush they cashed three goals on 35 opportunities; Anaheim converted twice from 24.

The Ducks offered one genuine counter: a dominant power play that delivered two goals on 14 shots (0.58 xG). But it was insufficient against Philadelphia's relentless five-on-five pressure.

D. Vladar (16 saves, 0.889 SV%) posted a serviceable performance, while L. Dostal's excellence could not overcome the Flyers' control. The final score—5–2—barely captured it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 6
ANA
2
PHI
5

Flyers run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.2 – 5.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
2.19
PHI
5.05
30% of the chances70%

The board read ANA 2, PHI 5. The chances read ANA 2.2, PHI 5.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
−0.1
goals above expected
PHI5.05 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA2.19 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 04:15ANAC. GauthierPP1–0
  2. P1 10:22PHIT. Zegras1–1
  3. P1 14:23PHIT. ZegrasPP1–2
  4. P2 01:15PHIC. York1–3
  5. P2 14:40PHIT. Sanheim1–4
  6. P3 01:25ANAA. KillornPP2–4
  7. P3 18:46PHIN. GrebenkinEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
34 shots
2
Final
86 shots
PHI
52 shots
5
ANA attackPHI attack
ANA PHI Goal
34
shots · 2 in
52
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANAPHI
0 / 2
0.46 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.74 xG
1 / 10
1.10 xG
Medium
1 / 23
2.47 xG
1 / 46
0.62 xG
Low
3 / 41
0.83 xG

High-danger looks: ANA 0 of 2, PHI 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
L. Dostal
+1.1
ANA · 34/38
C
D. Vladar
+0.2
PHI · 16/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers run the Ducks 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 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 5–13
  1. 04:15ANAC. Gauthierpower play(J. LaCombe, T. Terry)1–0
  2. 10:22PHIT. Zegras(C. Dvorak, T. Konecny)1–1
  3. 14:23PHIT. Zegraspower play(C. York, S. Couturier)1–2
2ndshots 5–18
  1. 01:15PHIC. York(N. Grebenkin, N. Cates)1–3
  2. 14:40PHIT. Sanheim(N. Cates)1–4
3rdshots 8–8
  1. 01:25ANAA. Killornpower play(T. Terry, J. LaCombe)2–4
  2. 18:46PHIN. Grebenkinempty net2–5

score reads ANA–PHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.05
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.1
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.039
PHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.19Expected goals5.05
PHI 70% of the chance quality
18Shots on goal39
2High-danger chances4
58All attempts (Corsi)68
Adjusted for score: ANA 51% · PHI 49%
Faceoffs · PHI won74%off48%neu67%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA0 / 2 · 0.46 xG
PHI1 / 4 · 1.74 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA1 / 10 · 1.10 xG
PHI1 / 23 · 2.47 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA1 / 46 · 0.62 xG
PHI3 / 41 · 0.83 xG

PHI went 3-for-41 from low danger on 0.83 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
2 G · 2.19 xG · -0.2
PHI
5 G · 5.05 xG · -0.1
0123456

ANA finished -0.2 against expected, PHI -0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST0/18
SNAP1/8
SLAP1/3
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/2
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/24
PHI
WRIST2/20
SNAP2/14
SLAP1/8
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/3
BAT0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/16
ANA
PHI
Off the rush
2 G on 24
1.77 xG
3 G on 35
2.67 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.28 xG
0 G on 5
1.26 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-18, PHI 2-for-20. PHI 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. Dostal
ANA · 34/38 · .895
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.7+0.7
Medium1/232.5+1.5
Low3/410.8-2.2

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. Vladar
PHI · 16/18 · .889
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium1/101.1+0.1
Low1/460.6-0.4

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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
34 shots
2
Final
86 shots
PHI
52 shots
5
ANA attackPHI attack
ANA PHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA 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
C. York
#8 · D · PHI
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 25:35 on ice · +3
T. Zegras
#46 · C · PHI
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 22:39 on ice · +1
J. LaCombe
#2 · D · ANA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:15 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 6
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:33 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 pregame model calls this a dead even—2.5 to 2.5 with the Flyers at 51% win probability. Tighter than a pick'em gets.

Form tells one story. The Flyers are hot: 5-3-2 over their last ten. The Ducks are cold—a -17 goal differential in the same stretch. But the underlying numbers tell another. Anaheim controls play at 5v5, holding a 52.0% Corsi advantage and matching the Flyers at 52.0% xG%. Philadelphia's metrics soften (48.0% Corsi, 51.0% xG%). The Ducks should own the territorial tilt.

Here's where it gets interesting: Anaheim's PDO sits at 0.981, running cold and overdue for positive regression. The Flyers, at 1.008, are running hot—and regression never waits. That's the edge the model is pricing in.

Beckett Sennecke (20G 19A, 1.03 xG/60) and Cutter Gauthier (25G 16A, 0.99 xG/60) drive Anaheim's offense. Sennecke has logged 8 high-danger goals on a 13.5% shooting rate; Gauthier has converted just 2 high-danger opportunities at 12.9%. The Flyers answer with Owen Tippett (19G 18A, 0.88 xG/60) and Christian Dvorak (12G 21A, 0.81 xG/60). Tippett is the sharper scorer, with 2 high-danger goals and a 12.1% shooting rate. Dvorak, though he carries 3 high-danger goals, is more distributor than finisher at 11.2%.

Both teams have generated 0% of their goals from high-danger situations and 0% from rebounds—an oddity due for correction. Defensively, Dvorak is Philadelphia's weakness while Mason McTavish carries that load in Anaheim.

The Flyers' hot streak is real. But the Ducks' underlying numbers suggest this is closer than their record says. Either team wins and you're working the margins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 51%
51%
PHI
Model favorite
49%
51%
ANA50PHI

PHI by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.5–2.5 PHI; 18% 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
ANA← edge
edge →PHI
52.0%51.0%
52.0%48.0%
2.802.26
2.592.20
2.091.96
2.321.82
0.9811.008

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 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
ANA
2-6-2
-17 GD · 3d rest
PHI
5-3-2
+3 GD · 3d rest
0.981
ANA 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 Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Flyers are the hotter team by points pace (5-3-2 in their last 10).
  • The Ducks are underwater at -17 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
3 days rest.853 last start
Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
3 days rest.920 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 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
ANA
Beckett Sennecke20G 19A
1.03 xG/60 · 8 HD · 13.5% sh
Cutter Gauthier25G 16A
0.99 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.9% 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