Motion-blurred skater in a Philadelphia Flyers sweater
Breakdown · CAR at PHI

Flyers edge the Hurricanes in a shootout

The verdict · earned

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

CAR 2 · PHI 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:33 AMxG: 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

The Flyers won 3–2 in a shootout, but the underlying play was far more one-sided than the final score suggests. Philadelphia controlled 59% of expected goals (3.95–2.76) and nearly tripled Carolina's high-danger chances (9 to 4). Yet both offenses underperformed their metrics: the Flyers by 0.95 goals, the Hurricanes by 0.76. B. Bussi's exceptional goaltending—1.95 goals above expected—compressed a dominant performance into a single-goal win.

The Flyers' offensive advantage was unmistakable. They generated 0.084 expected goals per shot, compared to Carolina's 0.039, signaling far superior shot quality. On rushes, both teams were lethal: Philadelphia scored 2 goals on 23 rush chances, while Carolina also managed 2 on 28. Where the imbalance mattered was in set-play efficiency—the Flyers dominated from dangerous areas, while Bussi kept his team afloat.

The Hurricanes' offense found its moments. They converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances (50%), capitalizing when opportunities arose. Yet the possession battle belonged to Philadelphia: they held 47% of shot attempts (23–26 on net) and translated that into cleaner looks. D. Vladar (PHI) recorded 24 saves on 26 shots (0.923 SV%, +0.76 vs. expected) to close out the win; Bussi finished 21 of 23 (0.913 SV%).

Tyson Foerster's snap shot from the high slot in the shootout decided it—a moment that crystallized Philadelphia's ability to generate from premium ice. The Flyers converted their dominance into a result, if barely.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Apr 13
CAR
2
PHI
3

Flyers edge the Hurricanes in a shootout

Chances 2.8 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flyers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
2.76
PHI
3.95
41% of the chances59%

The board read CAR 2, PHI 3. The chances read CAR 2.8, PHI 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PHI
−0.9
goals above expected
PHI3.95 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR2.76 expected · 2 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 08:41CARB. Nadeau1–0
  2. P1 15:30CARN. EhlersPP2–0
  3. P2 07:57PHIM. Michkov2–1
  4. P2 10:30PHIT. ZegrasPP2–2
  5. SO 00:00PHIT. FoersterPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
49 shots
2
Final
83 shots
PHI
34 shots
3
CAR attackPHI attack
CAR PHI Goal
49
shots · 2 in
34
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARPHI
2 / 4
0.80 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.38 xG
0 / 14
1.41 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.46 xG
0 / 53
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 23
0.10 xG

High-danger looks: CAR 2 of 4, PHI 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
B. Bussi
+1.9
CAR · 21/23
B+
D. Vladar
+0.8
PHI · 24/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flyers edge the Hurricanes 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 6–7
  1. 08:41CARB. Nadeau(N. Ehlers, S. Walker)1–0
  2. 15:30CARN. Ehlerspower play(L. Stankoven, J. Blake)2–0
2ndshots 8–6
  1. 07:57PHIM. Michkov(D. Barkey, N. Cates)2–1
  2. 10:30PHIT. Zegraspower play(P. Martone, T. Foerster)2–2
3rdshots 9–9no goals
    OTshots 3–1no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00PHIT. Foersterpower play2–2

      score reads CAR–PHI

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      3.95
      PHI chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.9
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.014
      PHI puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      39.8%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.76Expected goals3.95
      PHI 59% of the chance quality
      26Shots on goal23
      4High-danger chances9
      71All attempts (Corsi)47
      Adjusted for score: CAR 59% · PHI 41%
      Faceoffs · PHI won60%off50%neu83%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      CAR2 / 4 · 0.80 xG
      PHI1 / 9 · 2.38 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      CAR0 / 14 · 1.41 xG
      PHI1 / 15 · 1.46 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      CAR0 / 53 · 0.56 xG
      PHI0 / 23 · 0.10 xG

      CAR went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.41 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      CAR
      2 G · 2.76 xG · -0.8
      PHI
      3 G · 3.95 xG · -0.9
      012345

      CAR finished -0.8 against expected, PHI -0.9.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      CAR
      WRIST2/24
      SNAP0/4
      TIP IN0/6
      SLAP0/6
      BACKHAND0/5
      OTHER0/26
      PHI
      WRIST0/8
      SNAP2/14
      TIP IN0/4
      SLAP0/2
      BACKHAND0/2
      OTHER0/17
      CAR
      PHI
      Off the rush
      2 G on 28
      2.20 xG
      2 G on 23
      3.51 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 2
      0.19 xG
      0 G on 1
      0.13 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 2-for-24, PHI 0-for-8. 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
      B. Bussi
      CAR · 21/23 · .913
      +1.9
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/92.4+1.4
      Medium1/151.5+0.5
      Low0/230.1+0.1

      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

      D. Vladar
      PHI · 24/26 · .923
      +0.8
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger2/40.8-1.2
      Medium0/141.4+1.4
      Low0/530.6+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

      83 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      CAR
      49 shots
      2
      Final
      83 shots
      PHI
      34 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
      N. Ehlers
      #27 · L · CAR
      1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 16:25 on ice · +1
      S. Walker
      #26 · D · CAR
      0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:13 on ice · +1
      T. Zegras
      #46 · C · PHI
      1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 21:32 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Mon, Apr 13
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:47 AMEdited 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 a 2.6-2.4 game in Carolina's favor, with the Hurricanes at 53% win probability—which is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. This is a statistical toss-up masquerading as a directional take.

      Carolina owns the underlying play. The Hurricanes' 56.0% xG eclipses Philadelphia's 51.0%, and they drive territorial dominance at 60.0% Corsi against the Flyers' 48.0%. If the Hurricanes sustain their push, they dictate flow. But that margin is real—not guaranteed.

      The deeper edge lies in regression. Carolina's 0.984 PDO says they're running cold relative to their shot quality and luck. Positive bounce-back is the bet here: if even half their expected goals fall, the Hurricanes' edge widens significantly.

      The matchups are tilted toward Carolina. Jackson Blake (14G, 1.06 xG/60, 10.9% shooting) and Seth Jarvis (17G, 11.9% shooting) are Carolina's twin threats at even strength. Blake carries the higher expected output at 1.06 xG/60 versus Jarvis's 0.98, but Jarvis's goal total already outpaces expectations—he's converting at 11.9%, which is above the league median. Both players demand defensive attention Philadelphia may not have in surplus.

      Philadelphia counters with Owen Tippett (19G, 0.88 xG/60) and Christian Dvorak (12G, 0.81 xG/60). Tippett has buried 19 goals on 0.88 xG/60—an above-expected rate at 12.1% shooting—but that efficiency isn't repeatable over full seasons. Dvorak, at 0.81 xG/60 with 3 high-danger goals, profiles as the secondary threat. Neither player reaches Carolina's expected output tier.

      The gap between edge and certainty is tight. Carolina should win this game by the model's lights, but "should" at 53% is barely better than random. The Flyers have a puncher's chance if Philadelphia's depth plays to parity and someone among Tippett or Dvorak gets hot. Carolina's shot quality advantage is real enough to trust over 60 minutes—but in a single game, noise drowns signals fast.

      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 · No games yet
      CAR
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      PHI
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d 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.
      • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      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