Backcheck
Recap · PHI at CAR

Hurricanes run the Flyers off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJun 16, 2:26 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
PHI
Philadelphia Flyers
3
Home
CAR
Carolina Hurricanes
4
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.97Expected goals5.98
67% share for the better side
23Shot attempts (SOG)39
6High-danger chances14
52Corsi (all attempts)87
Score-adjusted: 38% / 62%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
S. ErssonPHI
+2.0
F. AndersenCAR
-0.0

PHI finished +0.0 against expected, CAR -2.0 — S. Ersson (PHI) saved 2.0 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
B. Brink
#10 · R ·
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:44 TOI
T. Sanheim
#6 · D ·
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 29:34 TOI · -1
S. Jarvis
#24 · R ·
1 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 20:50 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • S. Ersson (PHI) stopped 2.0 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 20 high-danger chances combined (CAR 14, PHI 6).
  • PHI scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • CAR was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 40 rush chances.
  • PHI was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 25 rush chances.
  • CAR created 7 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • PHI created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CAR underperformed xG by 2.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • S. Ersson (PHI) saved 2.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · PHI at CAR · 7:00 PM ET

The Hurricanes are the model's lean over the Flyers — and regression is coming

By the ModelJun 16, 2:25 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

57%
CAR
Model favorite
43%
57%
PHI50CAR

CAR by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PHI 2.32.7 CAR; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

PHI← edge
edge →CAR
51.0%5v5 xG%56.0%
48.0%Corsi%60.0%
2.26xGF / 602.98
2.20xGA / 602.31
1.96Goals for / gm2.26
1.82Goals against / gm1.95
1.008PDO — luck, not skill0.984

CAR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.008 vs 0.984) says PHI has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model's lean is clear: Carolina holds 57% win probability with a projected 2.3–2.7 margin. The Hurricanes are the better team on paper, but they're running cold.

Carolina dominates 5v5 play. At 56.0% expected goals versus Philadelphia's 51.0%, the Hurricanes generate more dangerous chances — a gap that compounds over a full game. Their 60.0% Corsi to the Flyers' 48.0% means Carolina controls the puck in all three zones and dictates tempo. This is territorial dominance.

But Carolina's PDO is 0.984, meaning their goaltending and shooting luck have run cold in tandem. That's a near-certain positive regression waiting to happen. Philadelphia, at 1.008, is benefiting from bounces that won't last. When the pendulum swings, Carolina's underlying advantage becomes a larger margin.

Philadelphia's structural problem is depth. Over the last ten games, they've been outscored by six goals — evidence that star power alone doesn't carry nightly. Owen Tippett, their second-leading scorer at 0.88 xG/60 with 19 goals and 12.1% shooting, is out. Christian Dvorak will need to fill those minutes, but at 0.81 xG/60 he's generating fewer opportunities per 60 than Tippett. Carolina's Blake and Jarvis represent the offensive engines the Flyers must contain.

The model is backing the better team, with both underlying metrics and variance regression working in Carolina's favor.

Players to Watch

  • Christian Dvorak (PHI) — 0.81 xG/60, 12G 21A, 3 HD goals, 11.2% shooting
  • Jackson Blake (CAR) — 1.06 xG/60, 14G 19A, 2 HD goals, 10.9% shooting
  • Seth Jarvis (CAR) — 0.98 xG/60, 17G 12A, 1 HD goal, 11.9% shooting
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters