Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Thu, Feb 5 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at PHI

Senators run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTThu, Feb 5
OTTOttawa Senators2PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1
The verdict · earned

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

OTT 2 · PHI 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:18 AMxG: 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 Senators dominated on underlying play—65% of 5v5 expected goals (3.60–1.95), 6–1 on high-danger chances—yet nearly squandered their control through poor finishing. They won 2–1 in overtime, underperforming their dominant xG by 1.60 goals.

Philadelphia had no business staying alive. They held 37% of shot attempts, 35% of expected goals, and faced six high-danger chances against one. But D. Vladar stopped 1.60 goals above expected, keeping the Flyers in a game where Ottawa dominated.

Ottawa generated looks worth 0.080 expected goals per shot; Philadelphia managed just 0.035, illustrating the quality gap. The Flyers kept damage minimal—1–6 on high-danger chances is survival-level defense—but they remained heavily outmatched underneath.

The Senators created 5 rebound opportunities and converted 1, showing they were crashing the net effectively. They just couldn't finish most chances. J. Reimer played well (+0.95 vs expected), but Vladar stole the show with 1.60 goals saved above expected.

Tim Stützle's backhander at 47 seconds of overtime ended it. Ottawa got what the underlying numbers promised, eventually.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Feb 5
OTT
2
PHI
1

Senators run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.6 – 1.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.60
PHI
1.95
65% of the chances35%

The board read OTT 2, PHI 1. The chances read OTT 3.6, PHI 1.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−1.6
goals above expected
OTT3.60 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI1.95 expected · 1 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. P2 09:55OTTN. Cousins1–0
  2. P3 18:46PHIJ. DrysdalePP1–1
  3. OT 00:47OTTT. Stützle2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
39 shots
2
Final
76 shots
PHI
37 shots
1
OTT attackPHI attack
OTT PHI Goal
39
shots · 2 in
37
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTPHI
2 / 6
1.67 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.21 xG
0 / 10
1.35 xG
Medium
1 / 10
0.99 xG
0 / 29
0.58 xG
Low
0 / 44
0.76 xG

The Senators buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Vladar
+1.6
PHI · 25/27
B+
J. Reimer
+0.9
OTT · 15/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators 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 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 8–2no goals
    2ndshots 13–6
    1. 09:55OTTN. Cousins(S. Pinto, M. Amadio)1–0
    3rdshots 5–7
    1. 18:46PHIJ. Drysdalepower play(B. Brink, T. Zegras)1–1
    OTshots 1–1
    1. 00:47OTTT. Stützle(B. Tkachuk)2–1

    score reads OTT–PHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.60
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.6
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.026
    OTT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    45.0%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.60Expected goals1.95
    OTT 65% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal16
    6High-danger chances1
    45All attempts (Corsi)55
    Adjusted for score: OTT 43% · PHI 57%
    Faceoffs · PHI won44%off55%neu42%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    OTT2 / 6 · 1.67 xG
    PHI0 / 1 · 0.21 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    OTT0 / 10 · 1.35 xG
    PHI1 / 10 · 0.99 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    OTT0 / 29 · 0.58 xG
    PHI0 / 44 · 0.76 xG

    OTT went 0-for-10 from medium danger on 1.35 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    OTT
    2 G · 3.60 xG · -1.6
    PHI
    1 G · 1.95 xG · -0.9
    01234

    OTT finished -1.6 against expected, PHI -0.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    OTT
    WRIST1/20
    SNAP0/6
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND1/5
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/6
    PHI
    WRIST1/15
    SNAP0/12
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/18
    OTT
    PHI
    Off the rush
    1 G on 21
    1.97 xG
    1 G on 22
    1.33 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 5
    0.89 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.21 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-20, PHI 1-for-15.

    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. Reimer
    OTT · 15/16 · .938
    +0.9
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/10.2+0.2
    Medium1/101.0-0.0
    Low0/440.8+0.8

    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 · 25/27 · .926
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/61.7-0.3
    Medium0/101.4+1.4
    Low0/290.6+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

    76 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    OTT
    39 shots
    2
    Final
    76 shots
    PHI
    37 shots
    1
    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
    J. Drysdale
    #9 · D · PHI
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 23:17 on ice · +1
    T. Zegras
    #46 · C · PHI
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:17 on ice
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 19:18 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Feb 5
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:16 AMEdited 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 game favoring Ottawa, with the Senators at 52% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Ottawa controls underlying play: 56.0% expected goals at 5v5 versus Philadelphia's 51.0%, with a 53.0% Corsi advantage that suggests territorial dominance. But the Flyers are carrying luck into this one. Their 1.008 PDO hints at opportunistic finishing outpacing shot quality; Ottawa's 0.993 suggests regression risk. Philadelphia's -10 goal differential over their last ten games masks underlying resilience—they're nearly even in shot quality despite the margin.

    The goaltending picture favors neither team. Both D. Vladar and J. Reimer face back-to-back situations, introducing tired-starter or backup-start variables that could swing the game.

    Offensively, Ottawa relies on Brady Tkachuk (11G, 1.19 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals, 7.5% shooting) and Dylan Cozens (13G, 1.00 xG/60, 1 high-danger goal, 9.5% shooting), both running high goal totals on modest volume—a finishing rate that won't sustain. Philadelphia's Owen Tippett (19G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals, 12.1% shooting) drives play at a pace suggesting his scoring should climb. Christian Dvorak (12G, 0.81 xG/60, 3 high-danger goals, 11.2% shooting) relies heavily on finishing, a high-variance profile.

    Defensively, Nick Jensen is Ottawa's weak link, while Christian Dvorak flags Philadelphia's back end. Neither team has converted high-danger chances into goals (0% for both), a sustainability marker—the team that finally cashes in one could seize control entirely.

    This is a genuine coin flip because the underlying map (Ottawa superior in shot quality and possession) contradicts the finish line (nearly even odds). The team that converts its edges first gets the result its play deserves.

    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
    5-3-2
    +8 GD · 1d rest
    PHI
    3-5-2
    -10 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.
    • J. Reimer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Flyers are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    OTT
    Expected in goal
    J. Reimer
    back-to-back.789 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.929 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