Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Sat, Oct 18 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at LAK

Hurricanes run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTSat, Oct 18
CARCarolina Hurricanes4LAKLos Angeles Kings3
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 4 · LAK 3
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:04 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's victory was backed by command of the underlying metrics. They controlled 61% of 5v5 expected goals (3.67–2.36 xG), a gap that makes the single-goal overtime result look closer than the play was. Seth Jarvis's wrist shot from the doorstep at 01:45 decided it.

That advantage showed up across multiple measures. The Hurricanes took 40 shot attempts to Los Angeles's 28. High-danger chances went 3–1 in Carolina's favor—the most reliable predictor of offensive pressure. Carolina also created three rebound opportunities by crashing the net, converting none.

Yet both teams found success in transition. Los Angeles scored three times off 26 rush chances; Carolina scored three off 33. When the game compressed into overtime, those fast-break opportunities became equally dangerous.

B. Bussi stopped 25 of 28 shots, though his 0.893 save percentage ran 0.64 short of his expected baseline. A. Forsberg posted a 0.900 save percentage on 40 shots, meeting his expected level.

Carolina's control of the expected goals metric is what set this game apart. They earned a one-goal result on the strength of a much larger advantage.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 18
CAR
4
LAK
3

Hurricanes run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.7 – 2.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
3.67
LAK
2.36
61% of the chances39%

The board read CAR 4, LAK 3. The chances read CAR 3.7, LAK 2.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+0.3
goals above expected
CAR3.67 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK2.36 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 00:12CARJ. Staal1–0
  2. P1 03:58CARJ. Staal2–0
  3. P2 03:43CARJ. Kotkaniemi3–0
  4. P2 04:35LAKT. Moore3–1
  5. P2 16:04LAKA. KuzmenkoPP3–2
  6. P3 11:02LAKK. Fiala3–3
  7. OT 01:45CARS. Jarvis4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
56 shots
4
Final
97 shots
LAK
41 shots
3
CAR attackLAK attack
CAR LAK Goal
56
shots · 4 in
41
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARLAK
1 / 3
0.64 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.23 xG
3 / 19
2.13 xG
Medium
2 / 11
1.43 xG
0 / 55
0.90 xG
Low
1 / 49
0.69 xG

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

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
A. Forsberg
−0.3
LAK · 36/40
D
B. Bussi
−0.6
CAR · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Kings 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 13–8
  1. 00:12CARJ. Staal(W. Carrier, J. Martinook)1–0
  2. 03:58CARJ. Staal(M. Reilly, J. Chatfield)2–0
2ndshots 15–12
  1. 03:43CARJ. Kotkaniemi(K. Miller)3–0
  2. 04:35LAKT. Moore(P. Danault, J. Edmundson)3–1
  3. 16:04LAKA. Kuzmenkopower play(Q. Byfield, A. Kempe)3–2
3rdshots 11–8
  1. 11:02LAKK. Fiala(A. Kempe)3–3
OTshots 1–0
  1. 01:45CARS. Jarvis(S. Aho, K. Miller)4–3

score reads CAR–LAK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.67
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.003
CAR puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
55.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.67Expected goals2.36
CAR 61% of the chance quality
40Shots on goal28
3High-danger chances1
77All attempts (Corsi)61
Adjusted for score: CAR 50% · LAK 50%
Faceoffs · LAK won31%off42%neu43%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR1 / 3 · 0.64 xG
LAK0 / 1 · 0.23 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR3 / 19 · 2.13 xG
LAK2 / 11 · 1.43 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR0 / 55 · 0.90 xG
LAK1 / 49 · 0.69 xG

CAR went 0-for-55 from low danger on 0.90 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
4 G · 3.67 xG · +0.3
LAK
3 G · 2.36 xG · +0.6
012345

CAR finished +0.3 against expected, LAK +0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
WRIST1/26
SNAP1/12
BACKHAND1/5
SLAP1/5
TIP IN0/4
WRAP AROUND0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/21
LAK
WRIST1/28
SNAP2/4
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/20
CAR
LAK
Off the rush
3 G on 33
2.43 xG
3 G on 26
1.62 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.30 xG
0 G on 2
0.39 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-26, LAK 1-for-28. 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
B. Bussi
CAR · 25/28 · .893
-0.6
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium2/111.4-0.6
Low1/490.7-0.3

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

A. Forsberg
LAK · 36/40 · .900
-0.3
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.6-0.4
Medium3/192.1-0.9
Low0/550.9+0.9

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

97 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
56 shots
4
Final
97 shots
LAK
41 shots
3
CAR attackLAK attack
CAR LAK Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, LAK 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
K. Miller
#19 · D · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 27:36 on ice · +2
A. Kempe
#9 · R · LAK
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 18:04 on ice
J. Staal
#11 · C · CAR
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 13:59 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 18
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 3:04 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 3.3–3.1 Hurricanes win with Carolina at 52% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find. This is about who controls the puck and whether that advantage survives the shooting variance.

Carolina owns the play decisively. The Hurricanes sit at 55.7% 5v5 expected goals against the Kings' 51.4%, and push territorial control harder: 59.1% Corsi versus Los Angeles's 52.1%. That's meaningful volume separation. The underlying shot share suggests the Hurricanes generate cleaner looks and absorb less danger.

One factor favors regression: Carolina's PDO is 0.984—running cold, with both goaltending and shooting bounce due to normalize upward. Los Angeles sits at 1.001, closer to expectation. If the Hurricanes' underlying advantage translates into goals as the model assumes, the tight margin understates their edge.

The focal point is Jackson Blake. The Hurricanes' leading scorer (14G 19A, 1.06 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals, 10.9% shooting) will be the Kings' shutdown focus. Carolina counters with Alex Laferriere (16G 18A, 0.87 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals, 9.9% shooting) as the Hurricanes' primary coverage target. Both are scoring at elevated rates—Blake's 10.9% and Laferriere's 9.9%—which means their goal totals reflect genuine efficiency, not randomness.

Supporting cast: Seth Jarvis (17G 12A, 0.98 xG/60, 1 high-danger goal, 11.9% shooting) provides secondary scoring for Carolina, while Jared Wright (0G 4A, 0.83 xG/60) runs depth for Los Angeles. The offensive load tilts visibly toward the Hurricanes.

The Kings enter as underdogs on these numbers, but 52% for Carolina is narrow. Expected goals and shot metrics own predictive power, but LA's hotter shooting—their 1.001 PDO—suggests some of that efficiency might persist. This is honestly a tight projection: the Hurricanes hold an edge in play quality that barely surfaces in the model because the Kings' shooting luck is running warm.

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 52%
52%
CAR
Model favorite
52%
48%
CAR50LAK

CAR by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CAR 3.3–3.1 LAK; 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 →LAK
55.7%51.4%
59.1%52.1%
3.593.10
2.852.93
3.552.68
2.882.90
0.9841.001

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.001) says LAK 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
LAK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.001
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALLAK

Shutdown Assignment: Kings

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 Alex Laferriere (16G, 0.87 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Alex Laferriere (16G, 0.87 xG/60, 2 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.

WARNINGLAK

Exploitable minutes: Adrian Kempe

Adrian Kempe is on ice for 2.47 xGA/60 and 43 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Adrian Kempe's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 55.7% 5v5 xG vs 51.4%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 59.1% — 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 — 55.7% 5v5 xG vs 51.4%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 59.1% — 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
LAK
Alex Laferriere16G 18A
0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
Jared Wright0G 4A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page