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

Hurricanes edge the Flyers in a shootout

The verdict · coin flip

The Hurricanes won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

CAR 4 · PHI 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:13 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

Philadelphia's dominance in chance quality proved hollow in a 4-3 shootout loss to Carolina. The Flyers generated 0.101 xG per shot compared to the Hurricanes' 0.048, yet expected goals was nearly even at 3.28–3.04 in Philadelphia's favor.

The deficit was in conversion. Philadelphia went 0 for 6 on high-danger chances. P. Kochetkov stopped all six, a 100% save rate on high-danger shots.

S. Gostisbehere ran Carolina's attack with two assists in 25:58. T. Zegras (Philadelphia, 1G, 1A in 18:24) and T. Sanheim (1A in 25:48) led the Flyers' charge but couldn't finish when it mattered.

Philadelphia controlled play through most of regulation, holding 46% of shot attempts (18–21 on goal). The Hurricanes overperformed their xG by 0.72 goals—the margin. Jackson Blake's wrist shot from the doorstep decided it in the shootout.

Both teams succeeded on the rush. Philadelphia scored three on 19 attempts. Carolina scored three on 31. Carolina won the shootout, where volume and efficiency stopped mattering.

Three Stars

  • #4 S. Gostisbehere (CAR) — 2A in 25:58
  • #46 T. Zegras (PHI) — 1G, 1A in 18:24
  • #6 T. Sanheim (PHI) — 1A in 25:48
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 13
CAR
4
PHI
3

Hurricanes edge the Flyers in a shootout

Chances 3.3 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Hurricanes took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
3.28
PHI
3.04
52% of the chances48%

The board read CAR 4, PHI 3. The chances read CAR 3.3, PHI 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+0.7
goals above expected
CAR3.28 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI3.04 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 10:04PHIB. Brink0–1
  2. P1 17:34PHIT. Zegras0–2
  3. P2 09:11CARN. Ehlers1–2
  4. P2 14:12CARA. Nikishin2–2
  5. P3 12:26CARS. Jarvis3–2
  6. P3 12:49PHIC. Grundstrom3–3
  7. SO 00:00CARJ. BlakePP3–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
51 shots
4
Final
82 shots
PHI
31 shots
3
CAR attackPHI attack
CAR PHI Goal
51
shots · 4 in
31
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARPHI
1 / 3
0.88 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.66 xG
1 / 18
1.65 xG
Medium
2 / 8
1.08 xG
1 / 47
0.75 xG
Low
1 / 16
0.30 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
S. Ersson
+0.3
PHI · 18/21
C
P. Kochetkov
+0.0
CAR · 15/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes edge the Flyers in a shootout

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 5–7
  1. 10:04PHIB. Brink(T. Zegras, T. Sanheim)0–1
  2. 17:34PHIT. Zegras(T. Konecny, J. Drysdale)0–2
2ndshots 8–9
  1. 09:11CARN. Ehlers(S. Gostisbehere)1–2
  2. 14:12CARA. Nikishin(J. Nystrom, T. Hall)2–2
3rdshots 6–2
  1. 12:26CARS. Jarvis(A. Svechnikov, S. Gostisbehere)3–2
  2. 12:49PHIC. Grundstrom(R. Abols, N. Juulsen)3–3
OTshots 2–0no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00CARJ. Blakepower play3–3

    score reads CAR–PHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.28
    CAR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.7
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    0.944
    CAR puck luck
    Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
    69.4%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.28Expected goals3.04
    CAR 52% of the chance quality
    21Shots on goal18
    3High-danger chances6
    68All attempts (Corsi)30
    Adjusted for score: CAR 72% · PHI 28%
    Faceoffs · PHI won39%off64%neu64%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CAR1 / 3 · 0.88 xG
    PHI0 / 6 · 1.66 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CAR1 / 18 · 1.65 xG
    PHI2 / 8 · 1.08 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CAR1 / 47 · 0.75 xG
    PHI1 / 16 · 0.30 xG

    PHI went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.66 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CAR
    4 G · 3.28 xG · +0.7
    PHI
    3 G · 3.04 xG · -0.0
    012345

    CAR finished +0.7 against expected, PHI -0.0.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CAR
    SNAP1/22
    WRIST1/14
    SLAP1/5
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/21
    PHI
    SNAP2/14
    WRIST1/7
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/1
    TIP IN0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/3
    CAR
    PHI
    Off the rush
    3 G on 31
    2.62 xG
    3 G on 19
    2.07 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.35 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-22, PHI 2-for-14. 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
    P. Kochetkov
    CAR · 15/18 · .833
    +0.0
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.7+1.7
    Medium2/81.1-0.9
    Low1/160.3-0.7

    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

    S. Ersson
    PHI · 18/21 · .857
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.9-0.1
    Medium1/181.6+0.7
    Low1/470.8-0.3

    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

    82 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CAR
    51 shots
    4
    Final
    82 shots
    PHI
    31 shots
    3
    CAR attackPHI attack
    CAR PHI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, PHI 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
    S. Gostisbehere
    #4 · D · CAR
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 25:58 on ice · +1
    T. Zegras
    #46 · C · PHI
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:24 on ice · +1
    T. Sanheim
    #6 · D · PHI
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:48 on ice · -2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Dec 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:11 PMEdited 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

    The model projects Carolina 2.6, Philadelphia 2.4, with the Hurricanes at 53% win probability—about as genuine a coin flip as modern hockey analytics produces.

    Carolina owns the underlying play. The Hurricanes drive 56.0% expected goals at 5v5 against the Flyers' 51.0%, and they dominate possession: 60.0% Corsi to Philadelphia's 48.0%. That territorial tilt should matter. Yet the Flyers are not getting dominated in real time, which points to one thing: puck luck.

    Philadelphia's PDO stands at 1.008—they're converting at an unsustainable rate. Carolina's is 0.984; the Hurricanes are running cold. When one team is outplaying another but getting outscored, regression usually arrives quickly. That favors Carolina, but only probabilistically.

    Both starting goaltenders face back-to-back situations. D. Vladar and B. Bussi are each on their second consecutive night in net. Watch for either team to pivot to a backup, or to lean on a tired starter who won't steal the game.

    Jackson Blake and Seth Jarvis carry Carolina's offensive load. Blake generates 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes—elite territory—and has scored 14 goals on 19 assists with a 10.9% shooting percentage and two high-danger goals. Jarvis is slightly behind at 0.98 xG/60, with 17 goals on 12 assists, one high-danger goal, and an 11.9% conversion rate. Both are beating the expected-goals model, which means one or both are due for a regression of their own.

    Philadelphia counters with Owen Tippett and Christian Dvorak. Tippett sits at 0.88 xG/60 with 19 goals, 18 assists, two high-danger goals, and 12.1% shooting—he's carried more volume than Blake despite slightly lower efficiency. Dvorak has found the net 12 times on 21 assists, generating 0.81 xG/60 with three high-danger goals and 11.2% shooting. Dvorak's high-danger conversion is noteworthy; he's punishing his chances at a clip that beats the Flyers' team average.

    The mismatch is clean: Carolina is the better team by the underlying numbers, but Philadelphia has proven willing to score despite being out-possessed. The Flyers' hot hand—measured in their PDO spike—will cool eventually. Carolina's cold hand should warm. The gap between them is narrow enough that either outcome looks reasonable.

    The 53% marker reflects this precisely. One extra bounce either way decides it. That's not a cop-out; that's the data telling you something genuine: this game is genuinely decided by margins too thin to predict with confidence.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CAR 53%
    53%
    CAR
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    CAR50PHI

    CAR by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.6–2.4 PHI; 18% 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
    CAR← edge
    edge →PHI
    56.0%51.0%
    60.0%48.0%
    2.982.26
    2.312.20
    2.261.96
    1.951.82
    0.9841.008

    CAR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.008) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CAR
    6-4-0
    +1 GD · 1d rest
    PHI
    6-3-1
    +5 GD · 1d rest
    0.984
    CAR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.008
    PHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — 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 — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • D. Vladar is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • B. Bussi is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CAR
    Expected in goal
    B. Bussi
    back-to-back.920 last start
    Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    PHI
    Expected in goal
    D. Vladar
    back-to-back.864 last start
    Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next