Scott Reynolds has some superb analysis of game 1 scoring chances. I thought I'd look at some of the various metrics we could use to evaluate the game:
| CHI EV | PHI EV | CHI PP | PHI PP | CHI SH | PHI SH | PCT | |
| Shots | 38 | 33 | 0 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 47.0 |
| Distance | 35.0 | 30.7 | N/A | 31.8 | 14.0 | N/A | |
| Close Shots | 10 | 15 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 36.7 |
| Chances | 12 | 12 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 39.4 |
| Lead | CHI/-1 | PHI/+1 | CHI/0 | PHI/0 | CHI/+1 | PHI/-1 | |
| Shots | 6 | 2 | 25 | 25 | 8 | 17 |
A mere counting of the shots shows some of what happened in the game – Philadelphia got a lot of shots off on the PP, while Chicago accomplished nothing – but the even-strength shots and shots with the score tied tell somewhat of a distorted story. Philadelphia's EV shots were significantly closer to the net – both by distance, and by total. So 'close shots' – below the face-off circles and between the dots – were significantly in Philly's favor, along with overall recorded scoring chances.
This was Philadelphia’s game to win. Chicago failed to control puck possession and Antti Niemi had a disaster of a game. Unfortunately, Michael Leighton played like the guy who brought a .902 career save percentage into the playoffs. Chicago has shown the ability to dominate teams of Philly’s caliber – the Flyers had better hope it doesn’t start in game 2.
