Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Sun, Dec 14 · the slate
Breakdown · PHI at CAR

Hurricanes edge the Flyers in a shootout

Final / OTSun, Dec 14
PHIPhiladelphia Flyers2CARCarolina Hurricanes3
The verdict · coin flip

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

PHI 2 · CAR 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:27 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 had the better looks. Eight high-danger chances to Carolina's 3; a 0.079 expected goal rate per shot versus 0.048. The Flyers' power play was lethal—2 goals on 16 chances, a 1.64 xG rate. Yet the Hurricanes won 3-2 in a shootout, sealed by Andrei Svechnikov's backhander.

Expected goals finished nearly even: 3.88–3.86 in the Hurricanes' favor. That narrow gap masks the underlying split. The Flyers attacked the slot; Carolina operated from distance and capitalized on the rush—2 goals on 43 chances.

Both teams underperformed in regulation. The Flyers squandered 1.86 goals of expected value; the Hurricanes surrendered 0.88. Philadelphia crashed the net for 6 rebounds but converted none.

Carolina controlled 55% of shot attempts (32–26 on goal) despite the Flyers' quality advantage. D. Vladar (PHI) made 30 of 32 saves at a 0.938 clip, +1.88 versus expected. B. Bussi (CAR) stopped 24 of 26, 0.923 SV%, +1.86 above expected. The shootout proved decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 14
PHI
2
CAR
3

Hurricanes edge the Flyers in a shootout

Chances 3.9 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Hurricanes took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
PHI
3.86
CAR
3.88
50% of the chances50%

The board read PHI 2, CAR 3. The chances read PHI 3.9, CAR 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−0.9
goals above expected
CAR3.88 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI3.86 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers left 1.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:44CARW. Carrier0–1
  2. P1 15:53CART. HallPP0–2
  3. P1 19:07PHIJ. DrysdalePP1–2
  4. P3 18:08PHIT. ZegrasPP2–2
  5. SO 00:00CARA. SvechnikovPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PHI
42 shots
2
Final
105 shots
CAR
63 shots
3
PHI attackCAR attack
PHI CAR Goal
42
shots · 2 in
63
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PHICAR
1 / 8
1.85 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.63 xG
0 / 14
1.55 xG
Medium
1 / 22
2.26 xG
1 / 27
0.45 xG
Low
1 / 55
0.98 xG

High-danger looks: PHI 1 of 8, CAR 0 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Vladar
+1.9
PHI · 30/32
A
B. Bussi
+1.9
CAR · 24/26
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 4–14
  1. 05:44CARW. Carrier(S. Walker, J. Staal)0–1
  2. 15:53CART. Hallpower play(A. Nikishin, J. Blake)0–2
  3. 19:07PHIJ. Drysdalepower play(T. Zegras, M. Michkov)1–2
2ndshots 7–9no goals
    3rdshots 15–7
    1. 18:08PHIT. Zegraspower play(T. Konecny, C. Dvorak)2–2
    OTshots 0–2no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00CARA. Svechnikovpower play2–2

      score reads PHI–CAR

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      3.88
      CAR chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.9
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      0.984
      CAR puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      62.0%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.86Expected goals3.88
      CAR 50% of the chance quality
      26Shots on goal32
      8High-danger chances3
      49All attempts (Corsi)80
      Adjusted for score: PHI 41% · CAR 59%
      Faceoffs · CAR won67%off50%neu36%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      PHI1 / 8 · 1.85 xG
      CAR0 / 3 · 0.63 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      PHI0 / 14 · 1.55 xG
      CAR1 / 22 · 2.26 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      PHI1 / 27 · 0.45 xG
      CAR1 / 55 · 0.98 xG

      PHI went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.55 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      PHI
      2 G · 3.86 xG · -1.9
      CAR
      3 G · 3.88 xG · -0.9
      012345

      PHI finished -1.9 against expected, CAR -0.9.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      PHI
      WRIST0/20
      SNAP2/10
      TIP IN0/5
      SLAP0/1
      BACKHAND0/3
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      OTHER0/10
      CAR
      WRIST1/28
      SNAP0/11
      TIP IN1/8
      SLAP0/9
      BACKHAND0/3
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      OTHER0/20
      PHI
      CAR
      Off the rush
      0 G on 23
      2.13 xG
      2 G on 43
      3.15 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 6
      0.84 xG
      0 G on 2
      0.24 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: PHI went 0-for-20, CAR 1-for-28. CAR scored 2 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
      D. Vladar
      PHI · 30/32 · .938
      +1.9
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.6+0.6
      Medium1/222.3+1.3
      Low1/551.0-0.0

      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

      B. Bussi
      CAR · 24/26 · .923
      +1.9
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/81.9+0.8
      Medium0/141.6+1.6
      Low1/270.5-0.6

      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

      105 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      PHI
      42 shots
      2
      Final
      105 shots
      CAR
      63 shots
      3
      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
      T. Zegras
      #46 · C · PHI
      1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:39 on ice · +1
      J. Drysdale
      #9 · D · PHI
      1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 25:36 on ice
      S. Walker
      #26 · D · CAR
      0 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 24:00 on ice · -1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sun, Dec 14
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:44 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 backs Carolina at 57% win probability in a projected 2.3–2.7 game. The pick rests on underlying dominance and a coming PDO correction.

      The Hurricanes own this matchup at 5v5 play. Carolina generates 56.0% expected goals to Philadelphia's 51.0%, and drives territory at 60.0% Corsi against the Flyers' 48.0%. That dominance across both metrics signals sustained pressure—Carolina's defense-first structure leans the play toward control.

      PDO is where regression lives. Carolina runs at 0.984, below baseline and due for positive drift. Philadelphia sits at 1.008, betting on unsustainable luck. Over one game that signal is noise; across a series it tilts edges.

      Philadelphia concentrates its offensive load on Owen Tippett, who operates at 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes with 19 goals and 18 assists. He has generated 2 high-danger chances at 12.1% shooting—he is the Flyers' primary offensive engine. Christian Dvorak operates at 0.81 xG/60 with 12 goals and 21 assists, more playmaker than scorer, though he has also converted 3 high-danger opportunities at 11.2%.

      Carolina distributes offensive threat across its top two. Jackson Blake generates 1.06 xG/60 with 14 goals and 19 assists, backed by 2 high-danger chances at 10.9%. Seth Jarvis carries 17 goals and 12 assists at 0.98 xG/60, though he has converted only 1 high-danger chance while shooting 11.9%.

      The depth edge matters. Carolina can control play without riding a single scorer. Philadelphia needs Tippett exceptional. That asymmetry—plus the PDO math—is where the model finds its lean.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      CAR 57%
      57%
      CAR
      Model favorite
      43%
      57%
      PHI50CAR

      CAR by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PHI 2.3–2.7 CAR; 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
      PHI← edge
      edge →CAR
      51.0%56.0%
      48.0%60.0%
      2.262.98
      2.202.31
      1.962.26
      1.821.95
      1.0080.984

      CAR holds 4 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 · Last 10
      PHI
      6-3-1
      +5 GD · 2d rest
      CAR
      6-4-0
      +1 GD · 2d 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

      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.
      • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      PHI
      Expected in goal
      D. Vladar
      2 days rest.864 last start
      Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      CAR
      Expected in goal
      B. Bussi
      2 days rest.920 last start
      Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season

      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
      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

      Back to the front page