Mon, Jan 2, 2023·Honda Center, Anaheim
Philadelphia Flyers 4, Anaheim Ducks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Anaheim Ducks win this game 63% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHI | 217 | 17 | 19 | 433 |
| ANA | 07 | 014 | 18 | 129 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 7:42PHIJoel FarabeeAssists: Noah Cates, Travis Konecny · Backhand, 0.10 xG1–0
- P1 10:36PHIMorgan FrostGWGAssists: Cam York, Joel Farabee · Snap, 0.02 xG2–0
- P2 3:00PHITravis KonecnyAssists: Kevin Hayes, Noah Cates · Slap, 0.07 xG3–0
- P3 8:26PHIScott LaughtonAssists: Kevin Hayes · Wrap-around, 0.08 xG4–0
- P3 19:20ANARyan StromeAssists: Trevor Zegras · Wrist, 0.08 xG4–1
Penalties (7)
- P1 3:23ANASam Carrick: Tripping2 min
- P1 12:39PHITony DeAngelo: Slashing2 min
- P1 15:46ANATroy Terry: Hooking2 min
- P1 18:29PHIPatrick Brown: Holding2 min
- P2 3:55PHINicolas Deslauriers: Roughing removing opponents helmet2 min
- P2 11:19PHICam York: Tripping2 min
- P3 13:15PHIJames van Riemsdyk: High sticking2 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.
20:00
P1
- P1 20:00Zegras won the faceoff against Cates
- 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
- bestHayes – Laughton – Allison7:48
xG 0.67–0.05 (93%)attempts 7–3goals 1–0
- Deslauriers – Brown – MacEwen8:32
xG 0.42–0.37 (53%)attempts 13–8goals 0–0
- Konecny – Cates – Farabee7:34
xG 0.20–0.19 (51%)attempts 6–4goals 1–0
- van Riemsdyk – Tippett – Frost11:30
xG 0.23–0.79 (22%)attempts 6–13goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestRistolainen – Provorov11:44
xG 0.92–0.14 (87%)attempts 19–6goals 0–0
- Sanheim – DeAngelo13:42
xG 0.45–0.65 (41%)attempts 12–12goals 1–0
- Braun – York11:48
xG 0.26–0.48 (35%)attempts 7–10goals 2–1
Anaheim Ducks
Forward lines
- bestHenrique – Terry – Zegras7:30
xG 0.57–0.21 (73%)attempts 7–6goals 0–2
- Carrick – Megna – Vatrano3:42
xG 0.10–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
- Carrick – Megna – Zegras2:08
xG 0.00–0.04 (0%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Silfverberg – Strome – Vatrano7:52
xG 0.08–0.22 (27%)attempts 2–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestShattenkirk – Beaulieu3:04
xG 0.31–0.04 (89%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0
- Shattenkirk – Benoit2:27
xG 0.25–0.03 (89%)attempts 5–2goals 1–1
- Shattenkirk – Vaakanainen5:40
xG 0.23–0.14 (63%)attempts 2–5goals 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 63% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (ANA − PHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).