Senators edge the Flyers in overtime
The Senators won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.
The underlying story
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 danger ladder
OTT went 2-for-9 from medium danger on 0.99 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.
Finishing vs expected
OTT finished +0.3 against expected, PHI -0.8 — L. Ullmark (OTT) saved 0.8 goals above expected.
Shot diet
Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-18, PHI 2-for-18. OTT scored 3 of theirs off the rush.
- PHI had the shot volume but the chances weren't dangerous.
- OTT had the higher quality looks — 0.070 xG/shot vs 0.050.
- PHI was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 25 rush chances.
- OTT was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 23 rush chances.