Backcheck
Recap · ANA at PHI

Flyers run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 11, 11:25 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
ANA
Anaheim Ducks
2
Home
PHI
Philadelphia Flyers
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.19Expected goals5.05
70% share for the better side
18Shot attempts (SOG)39
2High-danger chances4
58Corsi (all attempts)68
Score-adjusted: 51% / 49%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA0 / 2 · 0.46 xG
PHI1 / 4 · 1.74 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA1 / 10 · 1.10 xG
PHI1 / 23 · 2.47 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA1 / 46 · 0.62 xG
PHI3 / 41 · 0.83 xG

PHI went 3-for-41 from low danger on 0.83 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
2 G · 2.19 xG · -0.2
PHI
5 G · 5.05 xG · -0.1
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
L. DostalANA
+1.0
D. VladarPHI
+0.2

ANA finished -0.2 against expected, PHI -0.1 — L. Dostal (ANA) saved 1.0 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST0/18
SNAP1/8
SLAP1/3
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/2
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/24
PHI
WRIST2/20
SNAP2/14
SLAP1/8
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/3
BAT0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/16
ANA
PHI
Off the rush
2 G on 24 · 1.77 xG
3 G on 35 · 2.67 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.28 xG
0 G on 5 · 1.26 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-18, PHI 2-for-20. PHI scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
C. York
#8 · D · PHI
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 25:35 TOI · +3
T. Zegras
#46 · C · PHI
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 22:39 TOI · +1
J. LaCombe
#2 · D · ANA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:15 TOI · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • 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).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · ANA at PHI · 7:00 PM ET

Ducks at Flyers: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 11:33 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
PHI
Model favorite
49%
51%
ANA50PHI

PHI by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.52.5 PHI; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

ANA← edge
edge →PHI
52.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
52.0%Corsi%48.0%
2.80xGF / 602.26
2.59xGA / 602.20
2.09Goals for / gm1.96
2.32Goals against / gm1.82
0.981PDO — luck, not skill1.008

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.981 vs 1.008) says PHI has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The pregame model calls this a dead even—2.5 to 2.5 with the Flyers at 51% win probability. Tighter than a pick'em gets.

Form tells one story. The Flyers are hot: 5-3-2 over their last ten. The Ducks are cold—a -17 goal differential in the same stretch. But the underlying numbers tell another. Anaheim controls play at 5v5, holding a 52.0% Corsi advantage and matching the Flyers at 52.0% xG%. Philadelphia's metrics soften (48.0% Corsi, 51.0% xG%). The Ducks should own the territorial tilt.

Here's where it gets interesting: Anaheim's PDO sits at 0.981, running cold and overdue for positive regression. The Flyers, at 1.008, are running hot—and regression never waits. That's the edge the model is pricing in.

Beckett Sennecke (20G 19A, 1.03 xG/60) and Cutter Gauthier (25G 16A, 0.99 xG/60) drive Anaheim's offense. Sennecke has logged 8 high-danger goals on a 13.5% shooting rate; Gauthier has converted just 2 high-danger opportunities at 12.9%. The Flyers answer with Owen Tippett (19G 18A, 0.88 xG/60) and Christian Dvorak (12G 21A, 0.81 xG/60). Tippett is the sharper scorer, with 2 high-danger goals and a 12.1% shooting rate. Dvorak, though he carries 3 high-danger goals, is more distributor than finisher at 11.2%.

Both teams have generated 0% of their goals from high-danger situations and 0% from rebounds—an oddity due for correction. Defensively, Dvorak is Philadelphia's weakness while Mason McTavish carries that load in Anaheim.

The Flyers' hot streak is real. But the Ducks' underlying numbers suggest this is closer than their record says. Either team wins and you're working the margins.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters