Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater

Breakdown · PHI at OTT

Senators hold off the Flyers

FinalThu, Oct 8

PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1 OTTOttawa Senators2

The verdict · stolen

The Senators stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.09–2.81 and won anyway.

PHI 1 · OTT 2

◆ By the ModelOct 8, 11:22 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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 won 2-1, but the underlying metrics said the Flyers created the better chances. L. Ullmark saved the game in the process.

N. Cousins opened it at 10:14 of the first, tipping in from six feet on the rush, with Kleven and Foegele assisting. M. Michkov answered with a power-play rebound at 07:46 of the second, knotting it 1–1. C. Yakemchuk's power-play slap shot from 52 feet at 13:01 of the third — a 4% chance — beat J. Woll to decide it, with Giroux and Pinto assisting.

The Flyers' expected goals (3.09) exceeded Ottawa's (2.81). Philadelphia's 26 rush shot attempts, worth 2.50 expected goals, produced only one goal. Ullmark saved 2.09 goals above what her workload should have allowed. Ottawa's transition advantage (B+ to Philadelphia's D) proved decisive: the Senators converted their power plays and finished 2 of 5 high-danger chances while the Flyers managed 1 of 5. J. Woll was sharp (0.923 save percentage, +0.81 above expected), but Ullmark's net decided this one.

Three Stars

S. Pinto (Ottawa) — 1A in 22:50
C. Giroux (Ottawa) — 1A in 19:43
T. Zegras (Philadelphia) — 1A in 19:25

The goals

OTT 0–1, 10:14 of the first. N. Cousins, tip-in from 6 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Woll. Assists: T. Kleven, W. Foegele. 8 seconds after a PHI faceoff win by N. Acciari. Win probability moved 15 points.
PHI 1–1, 07:46 of the second on the power play. M. Michkov, backhander from 1 feet, a 32% chance by the model (a rebound), past L. Ullmark. Assists: T. Zegras, T. Konecny. 2 seconds after a PHI shot by T. Zegras. Win probability moved 20 points.
OTT 1–2, 13:01 of the third on the power play. C. Yakemchuk, slap shot from 52 feet, a 5% chance by the model, past J. Woll. Assists: C. Giroux, S. Pinto. Win probability moved 34 points.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 8

PHI

OTT

Senators hold off the Flyers

Chances 3.1 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Senators took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

PHI

3.09

OTT

2.81

52% of the chances48%

The board read PHI 1, OTT 2. The chances read PHI 3.1, OTT 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

OTT

−0.8

goals above expected

OTT2.81 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

PHI3.09 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Flyers left 2.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

The swing

+34

win-probability points

53% → 86% for OTT

OTT 100%the game, start to finish

PHI 100%P1 · P2 · P3

OTTP3 13:01 · PP

C. Yakemchuk makes it 1–2.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games

Every goal, in order

P1 10:14OTTN. Cousins8%0–1
P2 07:46PHIM. MichkovPP32%1–1
P3 13:01OTTC. YakemchukPP5%1–2

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

PHI

41 shots

Final

77 shots

OTT

36 shots

PHI OTT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PHIOTT

1 / 5

1.09 xG

High danger

0 / 5

1.11 xG

0 / 13

1.46 xG

Medium

1 / 13

1.31 xG

0 / 46

0.53 xG

Low

1 / 32

0.39 xG

High-danger looks: PHI 1 of 5, OTT 0 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

L. Ullmark

+2.1

OTT · 28/29 · 60:00

Best save · a 20% chance, snap from 34 ft · P1 15:32

B+

J. Woll

+0.8

PHI · 24/26 · 58:15

Best save · a 32% chance, backhand from 7 ft · P3 08:54

Best skater on the ice

A+

OTT

N. Cousins

C · impact 1.10

11:13

Ice time

1–0

G – A

0.08

Own xG

47%

xG share

Impact · top 4

N. Cousins1.1A+

T. Zegras1.1A+

T. Konecny1.0A+

C. Giroux1.1A

Report card

PHIOTT

OffenseB-B

DefenseD+D+

TransitionDB+

Special teamsB-C

GoaltendingBA

DisciplineC-B-

LuckDB

Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown

Why it went the way it went

Why OTT won

01L. Ullmark stole it
02Dangerous off the rush
03Power play cashed in

Why PHI lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Cold finishing night
03Paraded to the penalty box

Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown

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 / 12 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 11–8

10:14OTTN. Cousins(T. Kleven, W. Foegele)0–1
Tip-in from 6 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past J. Woll. 8s after a PHI faceoff win by N. Acciari. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: N. Cousins, D. Batherson, T. Stützle, N. Matinpalo, H. Stanley · against T. Sanheim, T. Foerster, D. Jiricek, D. Barkey, M. Michkov

2ndshots 11–9

07:46PHIM. Michkovpower play(T. Zegras, T. Konecny)1–1
Backhander from 1 feet, a 32% chance (a rebound), past L. Ullmark. 2s after a PHI shot by T. Zegras. Win probability moved 20 points.On the ice: T. Sanheim, M. Bunting, N. Acciari, N. Cates, J. Drysdale · against N. Cousins, W. Foegele, S. Halliday, N. Matinpalo, H. Stanley

3rdshots 7–9

13:01OTTC. Yakemchukpower play(C. Giroux, S. Pinto)1–2
Slap shot from 52 feet, a 5% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past J. Woll. Win probability moved 34 points.On the ice: W. Foegele, M. Amadio, S. Pinto, J. Spence, T. Kleven · against C. Dvorak, O. Tippett, T. Zegras, C. York, J. Drysdale

score reads PHI–OTT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.81

OTT chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.8

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.024

OTT puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

43.9%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.09Expected goals2.81

PHI 52% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal26

5High-danger chances5

64All attempts (Corsi)50

Adjusted for score: PHI 58% · OTT 42%

Faceoffs · OTT won47%off70%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PHI1 / 5 · 1.09 xG

OTT0 / 5 · 1.11 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PHI0 / 13 · 1.46 xG

OTT1 / 13 · 1.31 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PHI0 / 46 · 0.53 xG

OTT1 / 32 · 0.39 xG

PHI went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.46 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PHI

1 G · 3.09 xG · -2.1

OTT

2 G · 2.81 xG · -0.8

01234

PHI finished -2.1 against expected, OTT -0.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PHI

WRIST0/21

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND1/5

SNAP0/5

TIP IN0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

POKE0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/23

OTT

WRIST0/24

SLAP1/6

BACKHAND0/3

SNAP0/1

TIP IN1/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/14

PHI

OTT

Off the rush

0 G on 22

1.51 xG

1 G on 26

2.50 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 7

1.06 xG

0 G on 2

0.17 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 0-for-21, OTT 0-for-24.

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. Woll

PHI · 24/26 · .923

started · 58:15 · loss

+0.8

saved above expected

B+

the night

Attempts faced: 36
Avg chance faced: 7.8%
Stopped vs expected: 0.944 vs 0.922
Rebounds allowed: 2

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.1+1.1

Medium1/131.3+0.3

Low1/180.4-0.6

Shorthanded1/90.8-0.3

Tips & deflections1/20.2-0.8

The save

32% chance stopped, a backhand from 7 ft · P3 08:54

The one to have back

5% chance went in, a slap from 52 ft · P3 13:01

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 · 28/29 · .966

started · 60:00 · win

+2.1

saved above expected

the night

Attempts faced: 41
Avg chance faced: 7.5%
Stopped vs expected: 0.976 vs 0.925
Rebounds allowed: 7 · 1 scored on

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.1+0.1

Medium0/131.5+1.5

Low0/230.5+0.5

Shorthanded1/91.0-0.0

Tips & deflections0/20.1+0.1

The save

20% chance stopped, a snap from 34 ft · P1 15:32

The one to have back

32% chance went in, a backhand from 1 ft · P2 07:46

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

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: N. Cousins (OTT), 11:13 of ice, 1-0, 47% of the expected goals while he was out.

PHI18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
T. ZegrasC	19:25	0-1	3	0.17	59	0/0	1.15	3.54	A+
T. KonecnyR	17:04	0-1	2	0.29	61	0/0	1.05	3.68	A+
J. DrysdaleD	23:15	0-0	3	0.20	72	1/0	1.05	2.72	A
O. TippettR	17:21	0-0	4	0.51	76	0/0	0.79	2.72	B
M. MichkovR	15:20	1-0	1	0.32	44	0/1	0.70	2.74	B
T. FoersterR	16:33	0-0	3	0.33	44	2/0	0.55	1.99	B
S. CouturierC	17:11	0-0	4	0.51	50	0/0	0.44	1.55	B
N. CatesL	11:50	0-0	1	0.21	55	0/0	0.32	1.62	C
C. DvorakC	16:02	0-0	0	0.01	69	0/0	0.21	0.78	C
P. MartoneR	12:24	0-0	0	0.00	61	0/0	0.17	0.80	C
D.JiricekD	18:25	0-0	2	0.04	49	0/0	0.19	0.62	C
D. BarkeyC	11:50	0-0	0	0.00	68	0/0	0.12	0.58	D
T. SanheimD	22:42	0-0	1	0.12	57	0/2	0.12	0.32	D
N. SeelerD	16:53	0-0	1	0.05	46	0/0	0.06	0.21	D
M. BuntingL	10:56	0-0	2	0.14	50	0/1	0.04	0.21	D
C. YorkD	18:17	0-0	2	0.19	23	0/0	-0.16	-0.53	F
S. BenoitD	13:56	0-0	0	0.00	41	0/1	-0.20	-0.86	F
N. AcciariC	12:29	0-0	0	0.00	38	0/0	-0.20	-0.98	F

OTT18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
N. CousinsC	11:13	1-0	2	0.08	47	1/0	1.10	5.91	A+
C. GirouxR	19:43	0-1	1	0.20	53	1/0	1.07	3.25	A
S. PintoC	22:50	0-1	2	0.55	53	0/0	1.07	2.82	A
C. YakemchukD	14:45	1-0	2	0.09	46	0/0	0.88	3.57	A
T. ChabotD	29:19	0-0	4	0.22	59	1/0	1.00	2.06	A
W. FoegeleL	11:56	0-1	1	0.21	34	0/0	0.60	3.03	B
M. AmadioR	17:28	0-0	3	0.41	60	0/0	0.54	1.84	B
F. ZetterlundL	13:13	0-0	3	0.37	52	0/0	0.38	1.73	B
T. StützleC	20:14	0-0	0	0.00	60	1/0	0.31	0.92	C
T. KlevenD	18:29	0-1	0	0.01	30	0/1	0.27	0.89	C
D. BathersonR	16:07	0-0	3	0.20	58	0/1	0.23	0.84	C
R. GreigC	18:50	0-0	3	0.12	38	1/0	0.17	0.55	C
J. SpenceD	20:44	0-0	0	0.00	56	0/1	0.17	0.49	D
W. EklundL	1:24	0-0	0	0.00	0	0/0	-0.01	—	D
D. CozensC	17:47	0-0	1	0.15	47	0/1	-0.02	-0.06	D
S. HallidayC	11:43	0-0	1	0.19	32	0/0	-0.03	-0.17	D
H. StanleyD	10:21	0-0	0	0.00	37	0/0	-0.04	-0.26	F
N. MatinpaloD	17:12	0-0	0	0.02	20	0/0	-0.39	-1.34	F

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, PHI: G. Wilson, R. Ristolainen, C. Grundstrom. Scratched, OTT: H. Hodgson, C. Crotty, J. Sanderson. Referees Chris Rooney and Peter MacDougall; linesmen Scott Cherrey and Bevan Mills.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionPHIOTT

Offense

▸Basis

PHI Created 3.09 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 5 high-danger shots (1.09 xG) and 22 rush shots (1.51 xG).

OTT Created 2.81 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 5 high-danger shots (1.11 xG) and 26 rush shots (2.50 xG).

B-

Defense

▸Basis

PHI Allowed 2.81 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 5 high-danger shots (1.11 xG) and 26 rush shots (2.50 xG).

OTT Allowed 3.09 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 5 high-danger shots (1.09 xG) and 22 rush shots (1.51 xG).

D+

Transition

▸Basis

PHI Rush shots 22–26, rush xG 1.51–2.50 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

OTT Rush shots 26–22, rush xG 2.50–1.51 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

B+

Special teams

▸Basis

PHI 1-for-4 on the power play (25%; league ≈21%) with 0.73 PP xG.

OTT 1-for-5 on the power play (20%; league ≈21%) with 0.75 PP xG.

B-

Goaltending

▸Basis

PHI +0.81 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.

OTT +2.09 goals saved above expected on 29 shots against.

Discipline

▸Basis

PHI Took 5 penalties for 10 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

OTT Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 5 for 10 on the other side.

C-

B-

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

PHI Finishing -2.09 goals vs xG plus +0.81 GSAx of save luck = -1.28 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

OTT Finishing -0.81 goals vs xG plus +2.09 GSAx of save luck = +1.28 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately

What the model flagged

STRENGTHOTT

L. Ullmark stole it

L. Ullmark stopped 28 of 29 (0.966) — +2.09 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

WARNINGPHI

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 26 rush shots worth 2.50 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHOTT

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 26 rush shots worth 2.50 xG.

LUCKPHI

Cold finishing night

Scored 1 on 3.09 xG — -2.09 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

LUCKOTT

Wasted the best looks

0-for-5 on high-danger chances worth 1.11 xG — that conversion rate won't stay at zero.

STRENGTHPHI

J. Woll was perfect on high danger

J. Woll stopped all 5 high-danger shots he faced (100% HD save rate).

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PHI

41 shots

Final

77 shots

OTT

36 shots

PHI OTT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

S. Pinto

#12 · C · OTT

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:50 on ice

C. Giroux

#28 · R · OTT

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:43 on ice

T. Zegras

#46 · C · PHI

0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:25 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page