Thu, Jan 8, 2026·Xfinity Mobile Arena, Philadelphia
Toronto Maple Leafs 2, Philadelphia Flyers 1 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 67% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOR | 06 | 07 | 19 | 11 | 223 |
| PHI | 08 | 13 | 09 | 03 | 123 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 0:55PHITravis KonecnyAssists: Christian Dvorak, Rasmus Ristolainen · Snap, 0.09 xG0–1
- P3 14:04TORScott LaughtonSHUnassisted · Wrist, 0.06 xG1–1
- OT 2:48TOREaston CowanGWGAssists: John Tavares · Wrist, 0.14 xG2–1
Penalties (5)
- P1 18:35TORTroy Stecher: Slashing2 min
- P2 8:40PHIEmil Andrae: Holding2 min
- P2 11:31PHITravis Konecny: Slashing2 min
- P3 10:59TORMatthew Knies: Slashing2 min
- P3 12:07TORTroy Stecher: Tripping2 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 20:00Laughton 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.
Toronto Maple Leafs
Forward lines
- bestTavares – Maccelli – Knies12:22
xG 1.02–0.38 (73%)attempts 19–11goals 0–0
- Roy – Robertson – Cowan9:09
xG 0.51–0.13 (80%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Domi – Matthews – McMann11:57
xG 0.52–0.70 (43%)attempts 14–13goals 0–1
- Jarnkrok – Laughton – Lorentz8:15
xG 0.00–0.28 (0%)attempts 1–12goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestRielly – Carlo11:57
xG 0.87–0.47 (65%)attempts 18–16goals 0–0
- Ekman-Larsson – Benoit3:06
xG 0.28–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–1goals 0–0
- Rielly – Stecher2:33
xG 0.12–0.05 (70%)attempts 5–1goals 0–0
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- bestDvorak – Zegras – Grebenkin3:35
xG 0.17–0.08 (68%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Couturier – Tippett – Barkey9:39
xG 0.31–0.24 (56%)attempts 8–6goals 0–0
- Hathaway – Abols – Grebenkin5:30
xG 0.16–0.12 (58%)attempts 5–4goals 0–0
- Grundstrom – Cates – Michkov8:33
xG 0.11–0.10 (54%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestRistolainen – Sanheim2:56
xG 0.17–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Juulsen – Andrae9:31
xG 0.17–0.18 (50%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Sanheim – York13:51
xG 0.68–1.02 (40%)attempts 14–19goals 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.
PHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHI is favoured, below it TOR. 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, Philadelphia Flyers win this game 67% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHI − TOR), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).