Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Thu, Oct 23 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at COL

Hurricanes steal one from the Avalanche against the run of play

Final / OTThu, Oct 23
CARCarolina Hurricanes5COLColorado Avalanche4
The verdict · stolen

The Hurricanes stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.78–6.08 and won anyway.

CAR 5 · COL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:20 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

Colorado dominated this game by every measure except the scoreboard. The Hurricanes won 5-4 in a shootout despite being outshot 48-31 and generating just 2.78 expected goals to the Avalanche's 6.08—a 69-31 xG split that should have produced a comfortable Colorado victory.

Instead, Carolina executed a heist. F. Andersen was exceptional, stopping 44 of 48 shots and saving 2.08 goals above expected. S. Wedgewood faced 11 shots and allowed 3.02 more goals than expected—a clear mismatch. T. Miner took over in relief, stopping everything and adding 1.79 goals above expected.

Colorado created far higher-quality chances: 0.075 expected goals per shot versus Carolina's 0.051. The Avalanche generated 10 high-danger opportunities to Carolina's 2 and were lethal on the rush, scoring twice on 42 chances. But Carolina was surgical in transition, converting 3 of 18 rush attempts.

Colorado underperformed their expected goals by 2.1 goals—a devastating inefficiency against a team that overperformed by 2.22. S. Jarvis's wrist shot from the doorstep ended it in the shootout, converting what should have been a comfortable Colorado win into a theft.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Oct 23
CAR
5
COL
4

Hurricanes steal one from the Avalanche against the run of play

Chances 2.8 – 6.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
2.78
COL
6.08
31% of the chances69%

The board read CAR 5, COL 4. The chances read CAR 2.8, COL 6.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+2.2
goals above expected
CAR2.78 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
COL6.08 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes scored 2.2 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:07CARE. Robinson1–0
  2. P1 04:04COLV. Nichushkin1–1
  3. P1 07:17CARS. JarvisSH2–1
  4. P1 12:41CARS. Aho3–1
  5. P1 13:40CARL. Stankoven4–1
  6. P2 04:46COLP. Kelly4–2
  7. P3 04:45COLM. Necas4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
44 shots
5
Final
116 shots
COL
72 shots
4
CAR attackCOL attack
CAR COL Goal
44
shots · 5 in
72
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARCOL
2 / 2
0.46 xG
High danger
2 / 10
2.34 xG
1 / 12
1.61 xG
Medium
1 / 27
2.96 xG
1 / 40
0.71 xG
Low
1 / 44
0.79 xG

The Hurricanes buried 2 of 2 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
T. Miner
+2.8
COL · 20/20
A
F. Andersen
+2.1
CAR · 44/48
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes steal one from the Avalanche against the run of play

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 12–18
  1. 03:07CARE. Robinson(J. Kotkaniemi, M. Reilly)1–0
  2. 04:04COLV. Nichushkin1–1
  3. 07:17CARS. Jarvisshorthanded2–1
  4. 12:41CARS. Aho(N. Ehlers, S. Jarvis)3–1
  5. 13:40CARL. Stankoven(J. Blake, T. Hall)4–1
2ndshots 5–16
  1. 04:46COLP. Kelly(S. Malinski, R. Colton)4–2
3rdshots 12–11
  1. 04:45COLM. Necas(A. Lehkonen, N. MacKinnon)4–3
  2. 14:09COLV. Nichushkinpower play(V. Olofsson, C. Makar)4–4
OTshots 2–3no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00CARS. Jarvispower play4–4

    score reads CAR–COL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.78
    CAR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.2
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.025
    CAR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    40.0%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.78Expected goals6.08
    COL 69% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal48
    2High-danger chances10
    54All attempts (Corsi)81
    Adjusted for score: CAR 36% · COL 64%
    Faceoffs · COL won62%off71%neu36%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CAR2 / 2 · 0.46 xG
    COL2 / 10 · 2.34 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CAR1 / 12 · 1.61 xG
    COL1 / 27 · 2.96 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CAR1 / 40 · 0.71 xG
    COL1 / 44 · 0.79 xG

    COL went 1-for-27 from medium danger on 2.96 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CAR
    5 G · 2.78 xG · +2.2
    COL
    4 G · 6.08 xG · -2.1
    01234567

    CAR finished +2.2 against expected, COL -2.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CAR
    WRIST1/21
    BACKHAND1/8
    SNAP1/4
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN0/1
    BAT0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED1/1
    OTHER0/13
    COL
    WRIST1/34
    BACKHAND1/7
    SNAP1/10
    SLAP0/9
    TIP IN0/3
    BAT0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    DEFLECTED1/1
    OTHER0/12
    CAR
    COL
    Off the rush
    3 G on 18
    1.38 xG
    2 G on 42
    3.93 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 5
    0.70 xG
    1 G on 7
    0.96 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-21, COL 1-for-34. 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
    F. Andersen
    CAR · 44/48 · .917
    +2.1
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/102.3+0.3
    Medium1/273.0+2.0
    Low1/440.8-0.2

    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. Wedgewood
    COL · 7/11 · .636
    -1.2
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/20.5-1.5
    Medium1/121.6+0.6
    Low1/400.7-0.3

    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

    T. Miner
    COL · 20/20 · 1.000
    +2.8
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/20.5-1.5
    Medium1/121.6+0.6
    Low1/400.7-0.3

    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

    116 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CAR
    44 shots
    5
    Final
    116 shots
    COL
    72 shots
    4
    CAR attackCOL attack
    CAR COL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, COL 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. Jarvis
    #24 · R · CAR
    1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 23:01 on ice
    V. Nichushkin
    #13 · R · COL
    2 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 22:05 on ice
    C. Makar
    #8 · D · COL
    0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 28:30 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Oct 23
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:55 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 a 2.6-2.8 COL game with the Avalanche holding 53% win probability—as close to even as a prediction gets.

    Carolina's territorial edge is clear: a 60.0% Corsi rating will tilt play in their direction. Colorado answers with a 57.0% xG%, suggesting they make their chances count. Carolina's 56.0% xG% is sharp but leaves room for variance, and variance will decide a game this close.

    Puck luck is the invisible force here. Colorado's 1.021 PDO means both goaltending and shooting are running hot—expect that to regress. Carolina's 0.984 is the inverse: the Hurricanes are performing below their bases and due for a bounce. These gaps matter in a tight game.

    S. Wedgewood faces a back-to-back, muddying the goaltending picture. Whether he starts tired or a backup gets the call, that situation bears watching.

    Jackson Blake is Carolina's primary offensive engine at 1.06 xG/60 with 14G and a 10.9% shooting rate (2 HD goals). Stopping him is Colorado's defensive priority. Seth Jarvis (17G, 11.9% shooting, 0.98 xG/60) is the secondary threat.

    Colorado's best player is Artturi Lehkonen: 1.11 xG/60, 18G, and a 14.9% shooting rate driven by his 6 HD goals. He's finding high-danger looks consistently. Ross Colton (1.10 xG/60, 7G, 4.9% shooting) generates similar opportunity with fewer goals.

    Both teams sit at 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, meaning neither has found a sustainable secondary scoring channel. Whoever breaks that pattern first may break the game open.

    Defensively, Carolina shows weakness through Charles Alexis Legault; Colorado leans on Nazem Kadri as a liability. Both will face pressure.

    Corsi favors the Hurricanes. Puck luck favors the Avalanche. Everything else is noise.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    COL 53%
    53%
    COL
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    CAR50COL

    COL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.6–2.8 COL; 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 →COL
    56.0%57.0%
    60.0%57.0%
    2.983.03
    2.312.30
    2.262.63
    1.951.56
    0.9841.021

    COL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CAR
    6-2-2
    +8 GD · 2d rest
    COL
    6-2-2
    +10 GD · 1d rest
    0.984
    CAR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.021
    COL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • S. Wedgewood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CAR
    Expected in goal
    F. Andersen
    2 days rest.880 last start
    Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    COL
    Expected in goal
    S. Wedgewood
    back-to-back.879 last start
    Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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
    COL
    Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
    1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
    Ross Colton7G 15A
    1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page