Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
Breakdown · CAR at DAL

Stars run the Hurricanes off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

CAR 2 · DAL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:16 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

Dallas dominated possession—64% of expected goals (5.12–2.94), 55% of shot attempts (34–28), and high-danger chances 11–4. The Stars underperformed their expected goals by 2.12 and still won 3–2. That's the measure of their dominance: they were less efficient than their underlying play suggested, yet their control was still absolute.

The underlying metrics screamed Dallas. They generated 0.100 expected goals per shot against Carolina's 0.036—quality over quantity. They registered 11 high-danger chances and converted zero. Instead, the Stars scored twice from low-danger spots. On the rush, Dallas was lethal: three goals on 28 rush chances.

Carolina crashed the net effectively, collecting three rebound opportunities and converting none. Dallas crashed harder, generating eight rebound opportunities and converting none. The difference was the rush and the low-danger conversions.

Miro Heiskanen's snap shot from the high slot at 11:18 of the third period served as the turning point. He finished with two goals in 24:19. M. Rantanen added two assists in 21:03. T. Harley contributed one assist in 25:16.

J. Oettinger stopped 26 of 28 shots for a 0.929 save percentage, 0.94 goals above expected. B. Bussi stopped 31 of 34 for a 0.912 save percentage, 2.12 goals above expected. Carolina underperformed their expected goals by 0.94 as well. Bussi's excellence merely delayed the inevitable—Dallas's dominance was too complete to overcome.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 25
CAR
2
DAL
3

Stars run the Hurricanes off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.9 – 5.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
2.94
DAL
5.12
37% of the chances64%

The board read CAR 2, DAL 3. The chances read CAR 2.9, DAL 5.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
−2.1
goals above expected
DAL5.12 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR2.94 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 04:14CARJ. Blake1–0
  2. P1 19:49CARS. Aho2–0
  3. P2 01:04DALM. Heiskanen2–1
  4. P2 05:41DALS. SteelPP2–2
  5. P3 11:18DALM. HeiskanenPP2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
51 shots
2
Final
92 shots
DAL
41 shots
3
CAR attackDAL attack
CAR DAL Goal
51
shots · 2 in
41
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARDAL
1 / 4
0.82 xG
High danger
0 / 11
2.98 xG
1 / 13
1.33 xG
Medium
1 / 19
1.81 xG
0 / 65
0.79 xG
Low
2 / 21
0.33 xG

High-danger looks: CAR 1 of 4, DAL 0 of 11.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
B. Bussi
+2.1
CAR · 31/34
B+
J. Oettinger
+0.9
DAL · 26/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars run the Hurricanes 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 7–7
  1. 04:14CARJ. Blake1–0
  2. 19:49CARS. Aho(N. Ehlers)2–0
2ndshots 12–15
  1. 01:04DALM. Heiskanen(E. Lindell)2–1
  2. 05:41DALS. Steelpower play(T. Harley, M. Rantanen)2–2
3rdshots 9–12
  1. 11:18DALM. Heiskanenpower play(W. Johnston, M. Rantanen)2–3

score reads CAR–DAL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.12
DAL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−2.1
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.034
DAL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
38.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.94Expected goals5.12
DAL 64% of the chance quality
28Shots on goal34
4High-danger chances11
82All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: CAR 61% · DAL 39%
Faceoffs · DAL won52%off33%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR1 / 4 · 0.82 xG
DAL0 / 11 · 2.98 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR1 / 13 · 1.33 xG
DAL1 / 19 · 1.81 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR0 / 65 · 0.79 xG
DAL2 / 21 · 0.33 xG

DAL went 0-for-11 from high danger on 2.98 expected goals — 3.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
2 G · 2.94 xG · -0.9
DAL
3 G · 5.12 xG · -2.1
0123456

CAR finished -0.9 against expected, DAL -2.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
SNAP2/29
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP0/7
WRIST0/3
DEFLECTED0/3
POKE0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/31
DAL
SNAP2/25
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/6
SLAP0/0
WRIST0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/10
CAR
DAL
Off the rush
1 G on 31
2.12 xG
3 G on 28
2.83 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.37 xG
0 G on 8
1.33 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CAR went 2-for-29, DAL 2-for-25. DAL 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 · 31/34 · .912
+2.1
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/113.0+3.0
Medium1/191.8+0.8
Low2/210.3-1.7

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

J. Oettinger
DAL · 26/28 · .929
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.8-0.2
Medium1/131.3+0.3
Low0/650.8+0.8

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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
51 shots
2
Final
92 shots
DAL
41 shots
3
CAR attackDAL attack
CAR DAL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, DAL 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
M. Heiskanen
#4 · D · DAL
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 24:19 on ice
M. Rantanen
#96 · R · DAL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:03 on ice · +1
T. Harley
#55 · D · DAL
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 25:16 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 25
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:38 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 2.6-2.5 Carolina win with the Hurricanes at 53% probability — as close to a pick'em as markets get.

Carolina enters hotter: 7-1-2 in their last ten games, while the underlying numbers reveal a sharper split. The Hurricanes own possession at 56.0% expected goals, with Dallas lagging at 51.0%. On shot volume, the gap widens further — Carolina controls 60.0% Corsi to Dallas's 47.0%, suggesting Carolina will dictate territory.

The regression picture favors Carolina. Dallas has built their season on efficiency gains: a 1.024 PDO means they're outscoring the underlying play and due for correction. Carolina runs cold at 0.984, posting more high-danger looks than their results reflect — the downside risk tilts toward recovery.

Both goaltenders land on back-to-backs. J. Oettinger and F. Andersen could each face a backup appearance or log heavy minutes against a worn body. That uncertainty cuts both ways.

Carolina's production edges Dallas on individual merit. Jackson Blake leads CAR's charge at 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes (14G, 19A, 10.9% shooting), anchored by Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17G, 12A, 11.9% shooting). Dallas counters with Jason Robertson at 0.96 xG/60 — his 25 goals lead the table despite lower volume generation — and Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8G, 14A, 7.6% shooting).

The defensive mismatches matter less here than the underlying talent delta. Carolina's weak point, Charles Alexis Legault, will face pressure if Dallas can sustain forecheck intensity. Likewise, Tyler Myers represents Dallas's most exploitable gap.

This is a toss-up where the data tilts only slightly. Carolina's possession edge and regression clock project a narrow advantage. But Dallas's goal-scoring efficiency in the short term — and their goaltender depth if rested — keeps them live. Take the Hurricanes if you need a side, but this is one of those rare games where both rooms have reasonable paths to victory.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 53%
53%
CAR
Model favorite
53%
47%
CAR50DAL

CAR by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.6–2.5 DAL; 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 →DAL
56.0%51.0%
60.0%47.0%
2.982.36
2.312.29
2.262.07
1.951.68
0.9841.024

CAR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CAR
7-1-2
+10 GD · 1d rest
DAL
5-4-1
-4 GD · 1d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.024
DAL 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 Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • 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.
  • J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • F. Andersen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Hurricanes are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CAR
Expected in goal
F. Andersen
back-to-back.917 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 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.

DAL
Expected in goal
J. Oettinger
back-to-back.880 last start
Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next