Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a gold and black sweater
← Sat, Nov 1 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at BOS

Bruins hold off the Hurricanes

FinalSat, Nov 1
CARCarolina Hurricanes1BOSBoston Bruins2
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 1 · BOS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:05 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

The Bruins won 2–1 despite having fewer shot attempts—they managed just 22 to Carolina's 29—but controlled the game in every meaningful way. They dominated expected goals 3.23 to 2.52 (56–44%) and high-danger chances 6–1.

The difference was efficiency. The Bruins generated 0.065 expected goals per shot; the Hurricanes, 0.039. Quantity meant nothing. Boston turned fewer opportunities into better ones.

Both goalies exceeded their expected performance. F. Andersen (CAR) saved 20 of 22 shots and stopped 1.23 goals above expected. J. Swayman (BOS) made 28 of 29 and saved 1.52 goals above expected. The Hurricanes' higher shot volume suggested they had a path to victory—and F. Andersen's defense on high-danger chances (100% SV% on 6 shots) held the door shut. But Swayman was the thief.

The Hurricanes underperformed their xG by 1.52 goals, wasting quality chances. The Bruins, meanwhile, were lethal off the rush, converting 2 goals on 27 rush attempts. On high-danger chances, Boston went 0–for–6—an outlier that won't repeat.

The turning point: Alexander Nikishin's slap shot from the top of the circles in the third period at 17:11.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 1
CAR
1
BOS
2

Bruins hold off the Hurricanes

Chances 2.5 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Bruins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
2.52
BOS
3.23
44% of the chances56%

The board read CAR 1, BOS 2. The chances read CAR 2.5, BOS 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BOS
−1.2
goals above expected
BOS3.23 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR2.52 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes left 1.5 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. P3 01:27BOSC. Mittelstadt0–1
  2. P3 05:05BOSV. Arvidsson0–2
  3. P3 17:11CARA. NikishinPP1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
43 shots
1
Final
81 shots
BOS
38 shots
2
CAR attackBOS attack
CAR BOS Goal
43
shots · 1 in
38
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARBOS
0 / 1
0.19 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.35 xG
0 / 15
1.72 xG
Medium
2 / 15
1.49 xG
1 / 48
0.61 xG
Low
0 / 29
0.39 xG

High-danger looks: CAR 0 of 1, BOS 0 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Swayman
+1.5
BOS · 28/29
B+
F. Andersen
+1.2
CAR · 20/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Bruins hold off the Hurricanes

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 9–11no goals
    2ndshots 9–6no goals
      3rdshots 11–5
      1. 01:27BOSC. Mittelstadt(C. McAvoy, P. Zacha)0–1
      2. 05:05BOSV. Arvidsson(C. Mittelstadt, C. McAvoy)0–2
      3. 17:11CARA. Nikishinpower play(M. Jankowski, J. Martinook)1–2

      score reads CAR–BOS

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      3.23
      BOS chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −1.2
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.024
      BOS puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      43.9%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.52Expected goals3.23
      BOS 56% of the chance quality
      29Shots on goal22
      1High-danger chances6
      64All attempts (Corsi)50
      Adjusted for score: CAR 58% · BOS 42%
      Faceoffs · BOS won27%off27%neu77%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      CAR0 / 1 · 0.19 xG
      BOS0 / 6 · 1.35 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      CAR0 / 15 · 1.72 xG
      BOS2 / 15 · 1.49 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      CAR1 / 48 · 0.61 xG
      BOS0 / 29 · 0.39 xG

      CAR went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.72 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      CAR
      1 G · 2.52 xG · -1.5
      BOS
      2 G · 3.23 xG · -1.2
      01234

      CAR finished -1.5 against expected, BOS -1.2.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      CAR
      WRIST0/25
      SNAP0/7
      SLAP1/8
      BACKHAND0/3
      TIP IN0/0
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      DEFLECTED0/0
      OTHER0/21
      BOS
      WRIST2/8
      SNAP0/20
      SLAP0/2
      BACKHAND0/4
      TIP IN0/2
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      DEFLECTED0/1
      OTHER0/12
      CAR
      BOS
      Off the rush
      1 G on 24
      1.70 xG
      2 G on 27
      2.46 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 1
      0.17 xG
      0 G on 5
      0.53 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 0-for-25, BOS 2-for-8. BOS 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 · 20/22 · .909
      +1.2
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/61.4+1.4
      Medium2/151.5-0.5
      Low0/290.4+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

      J. Swayman
      BOS · 28/29 · .966
      +1.5
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/10.2+0.2
      Medium0/151.7+1.7
      Low1/480.6-0.4

      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

      81 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      CAR
      43 shots
      1
      Final
      81 shots
      BOS
      38 shots
      2
      CAR attackBOS attack
      CAR BOS Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, BOS 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
      C. McAvoy
      #73 · D · BOS
      0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 24:09 on ice
      C. Mittelstadt
      #11 · C · BOS
      1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:59 on ice · +2
      A. Nikishin
      #21 · D · CAR
      1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 24:41 on ice · -1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Nov 1
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:04 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 2.8–2.5 Carolina victory with the Hurricanes at 56% win probability. The edge lives in possession and a regression narrative favoring Carolina's luck.

      Carolina has won 7 of its last 10 games while Boston carries a negative-9 goal differential over the same stretch. The underlying disparity is stark: 56.0% expected goals at 5v5 to Boston's 47.0%, reflected in 60.0% Corsi to Boston's 49.0%. Carolina's territorial dominance is not accidental.

      The leverage comes from PDO. Boston is running at 1.023—flushed with puck luck—while Carolina sits at 0.984, substantially cold. Regression favors the team starved of luck, which is Carolina. That convergence is the model's edge.

      The matchup turns on Carolina's forward volume. Jackson Blake generates 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 19 assists on a 10.9% shooting rate; he has 2 high-danger goals. Seth Jarvis carries 0.98 xG/60, 17 goals, 12 assists, and 11.9% shooting with 1 high-danger goal. Both are shooting at elevated rates—likely unsustainable. Boston answers with Viktor Arvidsson at 1.04 xG/60, 18 goals, 24 assists, and 13.0% shooting; he's logged 2 high-danger goals. Tanner Jeannot generates only 0.75 xG/60 but has 6 goals and 14 assists with 2 high-danger conversions despite 8.3% shooting, evidence of positioning over luck.

      Neither team has converted rebounds or high-danger chances at scale this season—both at 0%. Execution from volume matters more than fortune. Carolina's Charles Alexis Legault and Boston's Elias Lindholm will face elevated ice time—neither a luxury matchup. The margin likely emerges from who sustains their underlying process most cleanly.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      CAR 56%
      56%
      CAR
      Model favorite
      56%
      44%
      CAR50BOS

      CAR by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.8–2.5 BOS; 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 →BOS
      56.0%47.0%
      60.0%49.0%
      2.982.39
      2.312.67
      2.262.22
      1.951.82
      0.9841.023

      CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.023) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      CAR
      7-3-0
      +10 GD · 2d rest
      BOS
      3-7-0
      -9 GD · 2d rest
      0.984
      CAR PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.023
      BOS 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 47.0%.
      • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — 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 47.0%.
      • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • The Hurricanes are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
      • The Bruins are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
      • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      CAR
      Expected in goal
      B. Bussi
      2 days rest.929 last start
      Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      BOS
      Expected in goal
      J. Korpisalo
      2 days rest.925 last start
      Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 GSAx this season

      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
      BOS
      Viktor Arvidsson18G 24A
      1.04 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
      Tanner Jeannot6G 14A
      0.75 xG/60 · 2 HD · 8.3% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page