Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Thu, Oct 16 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at ANA

Hurricanes run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Oct 16
CARCarolina Hurricanes4ANAAnaheim Ducks1
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 4 · ANA 1
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:54 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 controlled 64% of expected goals at 5v5 (4.90–2.74), a margin large enough to make the 4–1 scoreline merely a confirmation. Dominance at that level doesn't leave room for surprises.

Shot volume suggested a tighter affair. ANA held 43% of attempts (24–32 on goal), close enough that surface-level numbers might deceive. But quality separated the teams. CAR generated 0.079 expected goals per shot against ANA's 0.052. High-danger chances went 8–3 to Carolina. The 'Canes were far more dangerous.

The goalies reveal secondary truths. F. Andersen (CAR) stopped 23 of 24 (0.958 SV%, +1.74 vs expected), protecting the lead when ANA mounted their pushes. L. Dostal (ANA) made 28 saves on 32 shots (0.875 SV%, +0.90 vs expected), exceeding his expected save rate—yet it could not salvage the game. ANA underperformed their expected goals by 1.74; CAR by 0.90. The Ducks fell further short in the critical measure.

Carolina's offense was complete. They scored twice on the rush (26 chances) and dominated the rebounding game (7 opportunities, 2 converted). S. Gostisbehere orchestrated with 3 assists. S. Jarvis (2G, 1A) and S. Aho (1G, 1A) finished the work. ANA was simply outmatched across the board.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 16
CAR
4
ANA
1

Hurricanes run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.9 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
4.90
ANA
2.74
64% of the chances36%

The board read CAR 4, ANA 1. The chances read CAR 4.9, ANA 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−0.9
goals above expected
CAR4.90 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA2.74 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks left 1.7 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 14:54CARS. Jarvis1–0
  2. P2 10:22CARS. JarvisPP2–0
  3. P2 11:32ANAL. Carlsson2–1
  4. P3 02:38CARA. Nikishin3–1
  5. P3 15:48CARS. Aho4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
44 shots
4
Final
80 shots
ANA
36 shots
1
CAR attackANA attack
CAR ANA Goal
44
shots · 4 in
36
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARANA
2 / 8
1.91 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.70 xG
2 / 23
2.62 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.55 xG
0 / 31
0.36 xG
Low
1 / 36
0.48 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
F. Andersen
+1.7
CAR · 23/24
B+
L. Dostal
+0.9
ANA · 28/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Ducks 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 11–8
  1. 14:54CARS. Jarvis(S. Gostisbehere)1–0
2ndshots 12–10
  1. 10:22CARS. Jarvispower play(J. Blake, S. Gostisbehere)2–0
  2. 11:32ANAL. Carlsson(A. Killorn, D. Helleson)2–1
3rdshots 9–6
  1. 02:38CARA. Nikishin(S. Aho, S. Gostisbehere)3–1
  2. 15:48CARS. Aho(S. Jarvis)4–1

score reads CAR–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.90
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.9
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.046
CAR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
53.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.90Expected goals2.74
CAR 64% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal24
8High-danger chances3
62All attempts (Corsi)53
Adjusted for score: CAR 50% · ANA 50%
Faceoffs · ANA won56%off55%neu64%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR2 / 8 · 1.91 xG
ANA0 / 3 · 0.70 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR2 / 23 · 2.62 xG
ANA0 / 14 · 1.55 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR0 / 31 · 0.36 xG
ANA1 / 36 · 0.48 xG

ANA 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
CAR
4 G · 4.90 xG · -0.9
ANA
1 G · 2.74 xG · -1.7
0123456

CAR finished -0.9 against expected, ANA -1.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
WRIST1/13
SNAP2/12
TIP IN0/8
SLAP1/4
DEFLECTED0/5
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/18
ANA
WRIST1/18
SNAP0/9
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/17
CAR
ANA
Off the rush
2 G on 26
3.06 xG
1 G on 25
1.78 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 7
1.21 xG
0 G on 1
0.17 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-13, ANA 1-for-18. 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
F. Andersen
CAR · 23/24 · .958
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium0/141.6+1.6
Low1/360.5-0.5

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

L. Dostal
ANA · 28/32 · .875
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/81.9-0.1
Medium2/232.6+0.6
Low0/310.4+0.4

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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
44 shots
4
Final
80 shots
ANA
36 shots
1
CAR attackANA attack
CAR ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, ANA 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 · —
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 16:40 on ice · +2
S. Jarvis
#24 · R · —
2 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 16:19 on ice · +3
S. Aho
#20 · C · —
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:38 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 3:39 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 3.5–3.3 Carolina edge with the Hurricanes at 53% win probability. This is a pick'em.

The underlying play belongs to Carolina. At 5v5, the Hurricanes own 55.7% xG to Anaheim's 50.4% and dominate possession at 59.1% Corsi to 52.2%. Expect Carolina to generate more chances and control the ice.

Both teams are running cold. Carolina's PDO sits at 0.984, Anaheim's 0.981—both due for positive regression. In a tight game, variance will matter.

The decisive matchup centers on two forwards. Jackson Blake (1.06 xG/60, 14G, 19A, 2 HD goals, 10.9% shooting) drives Carolina's offense; the Ducks' priority is neutralizing him. Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20G, 19A, 8 HD goals, 13.5% shooting) is Anaheim's most dangerous player, living in high-danger areas; the Hurricanes must shut him down.

Seth Jarvis (17G, 12A, 0.98 xG/60, 11.9% shooting) rounds out Carolina's secondary depth. Cutter Gauthier (25G, 16A, 0.99 xG/60, 12.9% shooting) leads Anaheim's secondary scoring—his shooting rate is elevated, likely unsustainable.

Carolina's advantage in process is real but narrow. The model and the numbers align on that gap. Goaltending, execution, and matchup wins will determine whether the Hurricanes' xG edge converts to actual goals. No daylight, as promised.

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 53%
53%
CAR
Model favorite
53%
47%
CAR50ANA

CAR by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 3.5–3.3 ANA; 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
CAR← edge
edge →ANA
55.7%50.4%
59.1%52.2%
3.593.40
2.853.35
3.553.23
2.883.51
0.9840.981

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 0.981) says CAR 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
ANA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALANA

Shutdown Assignment: Ducks

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)

TACTICALCAR

Shutdown Assignment: Hurricanes

Key matchup: Neutralize Beckett Sennecke (20G, 1.03 xG/60, 8 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Beckett Sennecke (20G, 1.03 xG/60, 8 HD goals)

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.

WARNINGANA

Exploitable minutes: Mason McTavish

Mason McTavish is on ice for 2.95 xGA/60 and 36 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Mason McTavish's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 55.7% 5v5 xG vs 50.4%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 59.1% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • 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 50.4%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 59.1% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — 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
ANA
Beckett Sennecke20G 19A
1.03 xG/60 · 8 HD · 13.5% sh
Cutter Gauthier25G 16A
0.99 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page