Skip to content
Ice Lab

Sun, Jan 1, 2017·Honda Center, Anaheim

Philadelphia Flyers 3, Anaheim Ducks 4 (SO)

Expected result

Based on shot quality alone, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 83% of the time.

ANA winsPHI wins

By period

Goals and shots on goal in each period.

TeamP1P2P3OTSOTotal
PHI114224014031355
ANA2815010022425

Goals, with shots on goal in grey.

Scoring

Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.

  1. P1 7:55ANARyan KeslerAssists: Korbinian Holzer, Ryan Getzlaf · Wrist, 0.12 xG0–1
  2. P1 8:14PHITravis KonecnyAssists: Wayne Simmonds, Brayden Schenn · Tip-in, 0.18 xG1–1
  3. P1 16:54ANARyan KeslerAssists: Jakob Silfverberg · Wrist, 0.14 xG1–2
  4. P2 1:09ANARyan KeslerAssists: Andrew Cogliano, Sami Vatanen · Wrist, 0.09 xG1–3
  5. P2 1:46PHISean CouturierUnassisted · Wrist, 0.21 xG2–3
  6. P2 3:06PHIBrayden SchennPPAssists: Claude Giroux, Shayne Gostisbehere · Wrist, 0.41 xG3–3

Shootout

  1. 1. ANA Rickard Rakell scored
  2. 2. PHI Shayne Gostisbehere stopped
  3. 3. ANA Ondrej Kase stopped
  4. 4. PHI Claude Giroux stopped
  5. 5. ANA Cam Fowler stopped
  6. 6. PHI Jakub Voracek scored
  7. 7. ANA Jakob Silfverberg stopped
  8. 8. PHI Wayne Simmonds stopped
  9. 9. ANA Corey Perry scored
  10. 10. PHI Sean Couturier stopped
Penalties (12)
  1. P1 1:35PHIWayne Simmonds: Fighting5 min
  2. P1 1:35ANAKevin Bieksa: Fighting5 min
  3. P1 2:39PHIRoman Lyubimov: Tripping2 min
  4. P1 5:39PHIClaude Giroux: Holding2 min
  5. P1 12:04ANARyan Getzlaf: Tripping2 min
  6. P1 13:58PHITravis Konecny: Embellishment2 min
  7. P1 13:58ANAJosh Manson: Cross checking2 min
  8. P1 16:54PHIWayne Simmonds: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
  9. P1 16:54ANANick Ritchie: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
  10. P2 2:45ANAHampus Lindholm: Holding2 min · PPG
  11. P2 9:25ANANick Ritchie: High sticking2 min
  12. P3 2:15ANALogan Shaw: High sticking double minor4 min

Replay

Watch the game unfold on the ice: every shot, hit, turnover and faceoff appears as it happened, then fades. Drag the timeline to jump; goals are marked on it.

PHI00 SOG · 0.0 xG

20:00

P1

0.0 xG · 0 SOG0ANA
44% to win56% to win
← PHI attackANA attack →
  1. P1 20:00Giroux won the faceoff against Kesler
  • Goal
  • Shot
  • Miss
  • Block
  • Hit
  • Takeaway
  • Giveaway
  • Faceoff
  • Penalty

The numbers

Team totals, side by side.

PHIANA
55Shots on goal25
5.8Expected goals3.1
85Shot attempts54
29Faceoffs won31
5Power plays2
13Penalty minutes19
26Hits28
14Blocked shots17
11Giveaways11
7Takeaways6

Line combinations that worked

Model-based

Each team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.

Philadelphia Flyers

Forward lines

  1. bestSimmonds – Schenn – Konecny9:30

    xG 0.94–0.17 (85%)attempts 13–5goals 1–0

  2. VandeVelde – Bellemare – Lyubimov5:26

    xG 0.59–0.04 (93%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0

  3. Weise – Read – Couturier11:50

    xG 0.59–0.47 (56%)attempts 14–11goals 1–1

  4. Giroux – Voracek – Raffl11:34

    xG 0.55–0.49 (53%)attempts 15–11goals 0–1

Defence pairs

  1. bestManning – Gostisbehere11:13

    xG 1.48–0.67 (69%)attempts 20–11goals 1–1

  2. Del Zotto – Gudas14:23

    xG 0.74–0.29 (72%)attempts 16–10goals 0–1

  3. MacDonald – Provorov12:48

    xG 0.60–0.40 (60%)attempts 12–11goals 1–0

Anaheim Ducks

Forward lines

  1. bestKesler – Cogliano – Silfverberg10:23

    xG 0.63–0.42 (60%)attempts 12–11goals 2–0

  2. Boll – Cramarossa – Shaw2:11

    xG 0.15–0.01 (94%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0

  3. Vermette – Perry – Cramarossa3:15

    xG 0.06–0.19 (23%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0

  4. Getzlaf – Rakell – Kase8:12

    xG 0.32–0.55 (36%)attempts 8–9goals 0–1

Defence pairs

  1. bestManson – Lindholm11:51

    xG 0.55–0.20 (73%)attempts 11–5goals 1–0

  2. Vatanen – Lindholm3:10

    xG 0.07–0.07 (50%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0

  3. Vatanen – Fowler10:03

    xG 0.24–0.53 (31%)attempts 6–18goals 0–0

How the game flowed

Model-based

Chance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.

Expected goals flow

Running total of expected goals for each team. Steep climbs are spells of pressure; dots are goals. Shaded bands mark power plays (team colour), 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 (grey) and empty nets.

ANA 3.1 xGPHI 5.8 xG
0123456P1P2P3OTEndxG

Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute

ANAPHI

Win probability

Model-based

How each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.

Win probability

ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it PHI. Dots are goals.

Excitement 72/100 · #313 of 1230 this seasonSwing 1.70 · 6 goals in reach · 2-goal lead cutComeback index 50% (winner's lowest chance)
PHI 100%5050%50ANA 100%P1P2P3OTEndBiggest swing +22 pts

Did the better team win?

Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.

Based on shot quality alone, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 83% of the time.

ANA winsPHI wins

Simulated goal difference (ANA − PHI), 10,000 replays

-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7

The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).