Flyers run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers
The Flyers earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
The underlying story
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 danger ladder
PHI went 3-for-41 from low danger on 0.83 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.
Finishing vs expected
ANA finished -0.2 against expected, PHI -0.1 — L. Dostal (ANA) saved 1.0 goals above expected.
Shot diet
Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-18, PHI 2-for-20. PHI scored 3 of theirs off the rush.
- L. Dostal (ANA) stopped 1.0 goals above expected.
- PHI generated far more dangerous chances — 0.074 xG/shot vs 0.038. Quality over quantity.
- PHI scored 3 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
- PHI was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 35 rush chances.
- ANA was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 24 rush chances.
- PHI created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
- ANA power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 14 PP shots (0.58 xG).