Tue, Jan 4, 2022·Honda Center, Anaheim
Philadelphia Flyers 1, Anaheim Ducks 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 58% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHI | 15 | 09 | 015 | 129 |
| ANA | 29 | 19 | 112 | 430 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:21ANATroy TerryAssists: Hampus Lindholm, Jamie Drysdale · Tip-in, 0.05 xG0–1
- P1 9:41ANATroy TerryGWGAssists: Jamie Drysdale, Isac Lundeström · Backhand, 0.12 xG0–2
- P1 18:42PHICam AtkinsonAssists: Joel Farabee, Scott Laughton · Tip-in, 0.07 xG1–2
- P2 17:49ANASonny MilanoPPAssists: Rickard Rakell, Sam Steel · Wrist, 0.12 xG1–3
- P3 19:11ANATroy TerryENAssists: Maxime Comtois · Wrist, 0.65 xG1–4
Penalties (9)
- P2 6:07PHITravis Sanheim: Cross checking2 min
- P2 6:48ANACam Fowler: Interference2 min
- P2 16:46PHIMorgan Frost: Interference goalkeeper2 min · PPG
- P2 17:49PHIZack MacEwen: Delaying game unsuccessful challenge2 min
- P3 11:56ANAMaxime Comtois: Roughing2 min
- P3 11:56PHIRasmus Ristolainen: Roughing2 min
- P3 15:49ANAHampus Lindholm: Roughing2 min
- P3 15:49PHITravis Konecny: Embellishment2 min
- P3 17:42PHIKeith Yandle: Tripping2 min · PPG
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.
20:00
P1
- P1 20:00Laughton won the faceoff against Lundeström
- Goal
- Shot
- Miss
- Block
- Hit
- Takeaway
- Giveaway
- Faceoff
- Penalty
The numbers
Team totals, side by side.
Line combinations that worked
Model-basedEach 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
- bestvan Riemsdyk – Hayes – Mayhew10:28
xG 0.48–0.16 (75%)attempts 11–7goals 0–0
- Lindblom – Konecny – Frost13:39
xG 0.61–0.52 (54%)attempts 11–13goals 0–1
- Brown – Willman – MacEwen8:43
xG 0.32–0.28 (54%)attempts 4–8goals 0–0
- Atkinson – Laughton – Farabee11:21
xG 0.49–0.46 (52%)attempts 9–13goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestBraun – York15:56
xG 0.71–0.53 (57%)attempts 13–11goals 0–0
- Ristolainen – Sanheim18:05
xG 0.88–0.83 (52%)attempts 12–22goals 1–2
- Yandle – Connauton10:44
xG 0.14–0.32 (30%)attempts 11–11goals 0–0
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestMilano – Steel – Lettieri9:33
xG 0.63–0.14 (82%)attempts 10–5goals 0–1
- Terry – Comtois – Lundeström11:28
xG 0.52–0.41 (56%)attempts 10–11goals 1–0
- Robinson – Groulx – Kindopp5:49
xG 0.11–0.32 (26%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
- Silfverberg – Rakell – O'Regan16:52
xG 0.33–1.14 (22%)attempts 16–19goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLindholm – Drysdale14:09
xG 0.47–0.39 (55%)attempts 13–13goals 2–0
- Fowler – Manson19:31
xG 1.00–0.97 (51%)attempts 22–17goals 0–0
- Shattenkirk – Benoit13:06
xG 0.28–0.57 (33%)attempts 13–8goals 0–0
How the game flowed
Model-basedChance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.
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.
Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute
Win probability
Model-basedHow each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.
ANA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line ANA is favoured, below it PHI. Dots are goals.
Did the better team win?
Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 58% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − PHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).