Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
← Wed, Mar 18 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at ANA

Flyers run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTWed, Mar 18
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers3ANAAnaheim Ducks2
The verdict · earned

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

PHI 3 · ANA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:53 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 scoreboard said 3-2 overtime; the expected goals said rout. The Flyers controlled 62% of 5v5 xG (6.09–3.69), a gap that should have buried Anaheim. Instead, Philadelphia underperformed their model by 3.09 goals—the Ducks, by 1.69—and still escaped with the win.

The Ducks seized 56% of shot attempts (36–28) but couldn't generate danger. Their 0.051 xG per shot trailed the Flyers' 0.095 by nearly two-fold; Anaheim's 38% share of expected goals screamed low-danger volume. The Flyers' 11 high-danger chances to the Ducks' 7 told the same story: one team was shooting for the scoreboard, one for the highlight reel.

L. Dostal stole the show. The Anaheim goaltender saved 3.09 goals above expected (0.893 SV%), while D. Vladar (PHI) saved 1.69 (0.944 SV%). Even his superior performance couldn't overcome the Flyers' advantage in generating scoring chances.

Noah Cates's wrist shot from the doorstep at 02:17 of overtime sealed it—a finish the underlying numbers had promised all night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 18
PHI
3
ANA
2

Flyers run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 6.1 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
6.09
ANA
3.69
62% of the chances38%

The board read PHI 3, ANA 2. The chances read PHI 6.1, ANA 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
−3.1
goals above expected
PHI6.09 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.69 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks left 1.7 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 02:51PHIL. Glendening1–0
  2. P2 07:53PHIO. Tippett2–0
  3. P2 19:22ANAC. GauthierPP2–1
  4. P3 18:06ANAL. CarlssonPP2–2
  5. OT 02:17PHIN. Cates3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
52 shots
3
Final
104 shots
ANA
52 shots
2
PHI attackANA attack
PHI ANA Goal
52
shots · 3 in
52
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHIANA
2 / 11
3.13 xG
High danger
2 / 7
1.56 xG
1 / 24
2.45 xG
Medium
0 / 13
1.27 xG
0 / 29
0.51 xG
Low
0 / 52
0.86 xG

The Flyers buried 2 of 11 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
L. Dostal
+3.1
ANA · 25/28
A
D. Vladar
+1.7
PHI · 34/36
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 14–9
  1. 02:51PHIL. Glendening(C. York, G. Hathaway)1–0
2ndshots 9–15
  1. 07:53PHIO. Tippett(T. Sanheim)2–0
  2. 19:22ANAC. Gauthierpower play(P. Mintyukov)2–1
3rdshots 4–11
  1. 18:06ANAL. Carlssonpower play(T. Terry, C. Gauthier)2–2
OTshots 1–1
  1. 02:17PHIN. Cates(M. Michkov)3–2

score reads PHI–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.09
PHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
−3.1
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.019
PHI puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
47.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

6.09Expected goals3.69
PHI 62% of the chance quality
28Shots on goal36
11High-danger chances7
64All attempts (Corsi)72
Adjusted for score: PHI 43% · ANA 57%
Faceoffs · ANA won44%off62%neu32%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI2 / 11 · 3.13 xG
ANA2 / 7 · 1.56 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI1 / 24 · 2.45 xG
ANA0 / 13 · 1.27 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI0 / 29 · 0.51 xG
ANA0 / 52 · 0.86 xG

PHI went 1-for-24 from medium danger on 2.45 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
3 G · 6.09 xG · -3.1
ANA
2 G · 3.69 xG · -1.7
01234567

PHI finished -3.1 against expected, ANA -1.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
SNAP1/16
WRIST1/13
TIP IN1/13
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/5
WRAP AROUND0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/12
ANA
SNAP0/24
WRIST1/11
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/9
BACKHAND1/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/20
PHI
ANA
Off the rush
2 G on 39
4.13 xG
1 G on 32
2.32 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.72 xG
1 G on 5
1.01 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PHI went 1-for-16, ANA 0-for-24. PHI 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 · 34/36 · .944
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.6-0.4
Medium0/131.3+1.3
Low0/520.9+0.9

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. Dostal
ANA · 25/28 · .893
+3.1
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/113.1+1.1
Medium1/242.5+1.4
Low0/290.5+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

104 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
52 shots
3
Final
104 shots
ANA
52 shots
2
PHI attackANA attack
PHI ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, ANA 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. Gauthier
#61 · L · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 18:35 on ice
T. Sanheim
#6 · D · PHI
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:30 on ice · +1
C. York
#8 · D · PHI
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:34 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Mar 18
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:11 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

This is a genuine coin flip. The model projects a 2.4–2.6 Philadelphia win with Anaheim at 53% probability—a pick'em with the Ducks barely ahead.

Anaheim's edge is territorial. The Ducks drive 52.0% Corsi at 5v5; Philadelphia sits at 48.0%. Expected goals are tighter—Anaheim 52.0%, Philadelphia 51.0%—but possession control compounds over time. Philadelphia's 1.008 PDO suggests their goal rate reflects earned chances. Anaheim's 0.981 PDO means the Ducks are running cold and due for positive regression.

The Flyers rely on Owen Tippett and Christian Dvorak. Tippett generates 0.88 xG/60, converting at 12.1% with 19 goals, 18 assists, and 2 high-danger goals. Dvorak produces 0.81 xG/60 at 11.2%, posting 12 goals, 21 assists, and 3 high-danger goals. Both are scoring efficiently.

Anaheim counters with Beckett Sennecke and Cutter Gauthier. Sennecke leads at 1.03 xG/60—the highest volume on ice—shooting 13.5% with 20 goals, 19 assists, and 8 high-danger goals. Gauthier has 25 goals, 16 assists, and 2 high-danger goals on 0.99 xG/60 at 12.9% shooting. Sennecke's 8 high-danger goals dwarf any opponent on the ice.

Philadelphia's path is precise shooting in key moments; Anaheim's is relentless possession and volume. The Ducks will control play. The Flyers survive if they're clinical in execution. In a game this tight, one goal decides it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 53%
53%
ANA
Model favorite
47%
53%
PHI50ANA

ANA by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PHI 2.4–2.6 ANA; 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
PHI← edge
edge →ANA
51.0%52.0%
48.0%52.0%
2.262.80
2.202.59
1.962.09
1.822.32
1.0080.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.981) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PHI
6-3-1
-1 GD · 4d rest
ANA
6-4-0
-1 GD · 3d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.981
ANA 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 Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PHI
Expected in goal
D. Vladar
4 days rest.964 last start
Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
3 days rest.900 last start
Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page