Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
Breakdown · PHI at CAR

Hurricanes run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

The Hurricanes earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

PHI 3 · CAR 4
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:26 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Carolina dominated the underlying numbers so thoroughly that losing in regulation would have been a heist. They generated 5.98 expected goals to Philadelphia's 2.97—a 67–33 split. Yet they won 4–3 in overtime, a margin that barely reflects their control of the game.

The reason: S. Ersson (0.897 SV%, +1.98 vs. expected) was exceptional. Carolina controlled 63% of shot attempts (39–23) and led 14–6 in high-danger chances. But his performance kept Philadelphia within striking distance until Seth Jarvis's slap shot from the high slot ended it at 4:43 of overtime.

Carolina was surgical on the rush, converting 3 of 40 chances. Philadelphia countered with 2 on 25—a ratio that tells the story of a team playing catch-up. Both teams crashed the net: Carolina generated 7 rebound opportunities (1 converted), Philadelphia 4 (1 converted). But neither could break through volume into decisive scoring.

The overarching lesson: Philadelphia's two goals from low-danger areas were exactly the kind a team down 5.98–2.97 in expected goals needs to steal. They nearly pulled it off. S. Ersson, with his otherworldly performance, made it close. But in a game this lopsided on underlying numbers, Carolina's eventual victory felt inevitable, even if the path took an extra period.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 11
PHI
3
CAR
4

Hurricanes run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.0 – 6.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
2.97
CAR
5.98
33% of the chances67%

The board read PHI 3, CAR 4. The chances read PHI 3.0, CAR 6.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−2.0
goals above expected
CAR5.98 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI2.97 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 19:38PHIO. TippettPP1–0
  2. P2 03:46CARL. Stankoven1–1
  3. P2 06:18PHIB. Brink2–1
  4. P2 09:07CART. Hall2–2
  5. P2 18:30CARJ. Staal2–3
  6. P3 16:00PHIT. Sanheim3–3
  7. OT 04:43CARS. Jarvis3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
36 shots
3
Final
101 shots
CAR
65 shots
4
PHI attackCAR attack
PHI CAR Goal
36
shots · 3 in
65
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHICAR
1 / 6
1.21 xG
High danger
4 / 14
3.16 xG
0 / 13
1.27 xG
Medium
0 / 20
1.97 xG
2 / 33
0.49 xG
Low
0 / 53
0.85 xG

The Hurricanes buried 4 of 14 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Ersson
+2.0
PHI · 35/39
C
F. Andersen
−0.0
CAR · 20/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 6–15
  1. 19:38PHIO. Tippettpower play(T. Konecny, T. Zegras)1–0
2ndshots 12–12
  1. 03:46CARL. Stankoven(J. Blake, A. Nikishin)1–1
  2. 06:18PHIB. Brink(N. Cates, N. Grebenkin)2–1
  3. 09:07CART. Hall(E. Robinson)2–2
  4. 18:30CARJ. Staal(J. Martinook)2–3
3rdshots 5–11
  1. 16:00PHIT. Sanheim(B. Brink, T. Foerster)3–3
OTshots 0–1
  1. 04:43CARS. Jarvis(S. Aho, S. Gostisbehere)3–4

score reads PHI–CAR

Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.98
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−2.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
0.988
CAR puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
62.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.97Expected goals5.98
CAR 67% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal39
6High-danger chances14
52All attempts (Corsi)87
Adjusted for score: PHI 38% · CAR 62%
Faceoffs · CAR won58%off50%neu52%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PHI1 / 6 · 1.21 xG
CAR4 / 14 · 3.16 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PHI0 / 13 · 1.27 xG
CAR0 / 20 · 1.97 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PHI2 / 33 · 0.49 xG
CAR0 / 53 · 0.85 xG

CAR went 0-for-20 from medium danger on 1.97 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PHI
3 G · 2.97 xG · +0.0
CAR
4 G · 5.98 xG · -2.0
01234567

PHI finished +0.0 against expected, CAR -2.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
PHI
SNAP2/10
WRIST1/19
BACKHAND0/1
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/0
WRAP AROUND0/2
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/16
CAR
SNAP2/35
WRIST0/10
BACKHAND1/8
TIP IN0/4
SLAP1/5
WRAP AROUND0/2
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/22
PHI
CAR
Off the rush
2 G on 25
1.82 xG
3 G on 40
3.96 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.80 xG
1 G on 7
0.92 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PHI went 2-for-10, CAR 2-for-35. CAR scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
New to these numbers?

Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

xG
Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
HD
High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
Corsi
Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
Adj.
Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
GSAx
Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
PDO
Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
Shot by shot

In the net

Graded on goals saved above expected
S. Ersson
PHI · 35/39 · .897
+2.0
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/143.2-0.8
Medium0/202.0+2.0
Low0/530.8+0.8

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

F. Andersen
CAR · 20/23 · .870
-0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.2+0.2
Medium0/131.3+1.3
Low2/330.5-1.5

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

101 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PHI
36 shots
3
Final
101 shots
CAR
65 shots
4
PHI attackCAR attack
PHI CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PHI left, CAR right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
B. Brink
#10 · R · —
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:44 on ice
T. Sanheim
#6 · D · —
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 29:34 on ice · -1
S. Jarvis
#24 · R · —
1 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 20:50 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 11
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Model draft
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:59 AMRaw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The model projects a PHI 3.0 - 3.4 CAR game with the Hurricanes at 56% win probability.

Keys to the game

  • Shutdown Assignment: Hurricanes. Key matchup: Neutralize Owen Tippett (19G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
  • Shutdown Assignment: Flyers. Key matchup: Neutralize Jackson Blake (14G, 1.06 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
  • Jackson Blake drives the Hurricanes offense. Jackson Blake: 14G 19A, 1.06 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.

Season 5v5 Numbers

MetricPHICAR
xG%52.1%55.7%
Corsi%47.6%59.1%
PDO1.0080.984

Rates from 2025-26 — the 2026-27 sample isn't live yet.

Where the Edges Live

  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 55.7% 5v5 xG vs 52.1%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 59.1% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression Watch

  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Players to Watch

PHI

  • Owen Tippett — 0.88 xG/60, 19G 18A, 2 HD goals, 12.1% shooting
  • Christian Dvorak — 0.81 xG/60, 12G 21A, 3 HD goals, 11.2% shooting

CAR

  • Jackson Blake — 1.06 xG/60, 14G 19A, 2 HD goals, 10.9% shooting
  • Seth Jarvis — 0.98 xG/60, 17G 12A, 1 HD goals, 11.9% shooting

Key Matchups

PHI

  • Key matchup: Neutralize Owen Tippett (19G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
  • Watch Christian Dvorak (12G, 11.2% shooting)

CAR

  • Key matchup: Neutralize Jackson Blake (14G, 1.06 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
  • Watch Seth Jarvis (17G, 11.9% shooting)

Tactical Notes

  • PHI: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
  • PHI defensive weak link: Christian Dvorak
  • CAR: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
  • CAR defensive weak link: Charles Alexis Legault

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 56%
56%
CAR
Model favorite
44%
56%
PHI50CAR

CAR by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PHI 3.0–3.4 CAR; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG
PHI← edge
edge →CAR
52.1%55.7%
47.6%59.1%
3.053.59
2.802.85
2.933.55
2.912.88
1.0080.984

CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.008 vs 0.984) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
PHI
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
CAR
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.008
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALCAR

Shutdown Assignment: Hurricanes

Key matchup: Neutralize Owen Tippett (19G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Owen Tippett (19G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

TACTICALPHI

Shutdown Assignment: Flyers

Key matchup: Neutralize Jackson Blake (14G, 1.06 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Jackson Blake (14G, 1.06 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

WARNINGPHI

Exploitable minutes: Christian Dvorak

Christian Dvorak is on ice for 2.68 xGA/60 and 54 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Christian Dvorak's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGCAR

Exploitable minutes: Charles Alexis Legault

Charles Alexis Legault is on ice for 2.69 xGA/60 and 9 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Charles Alexis Legault's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 55.7% 5v5 xG vs 52.1%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 59.1% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 55.7% 5v5 xG vs 52.1%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 59.1% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
PHI
Owen Tippett19G 18A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.1% sh
Christian Dvorak12G 21A
0.81 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.2% sh
CAR
Jackson Blake14G 19A
1.06 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.9% sh
Seth Jarvis17G 12A
0.98 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next