The Hurricanes earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
High-danger chances arrived in equal measure—7-7—yet Carolina won 4-3. The Hurricanes' edge lay elsewhere: two goals from low-danger spots that Gustavsson should have had.
The underlying dominance was real. Carolina controlled 57% of expected goals (4.66–3.44) and held 53% of shot attempts (27–24). But both teams arrived at the crease with identical offensive pressure. The difference was conversion geography.
Gustavsson stopped all 7 high-danger chances, yet allowed low-danger goals that exposed a gap. Carolina scored twice from areas outside the prime scoring zone, then pulled away on the rush with 3 goals on 33 attempts—less efficient than Minnesota's 3 on 20, but volume tilted the balance.
Neither team converted in the danger zone. Carolina went 0-for-7 and Minnesota matched them. Both generated six rebound opportunities each without a conversion. The game hinged on depth—low-danger penetration and second-chance work from the perimeter.
Nikolaj Ehlers's tip-in (P2, 00:46) exemplified Carolina's strategy: directing traffic at the net and converting close-range chances.
F. Andersen (21/24, 0.875 SV%) proved steadier overall, yielding just three goals. Gustavsson (23/27, 0.852 SV%) stopped every high-danger chance but faltered elsewhere; the Hurricanes made him pay for low-danger lapses.