Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Fri, Nov 14 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at CAR

Hurricanes run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTFri, Nov 14
VANVancouver Canucks3CARCarolina Hurricanes4
The verdict · earned

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

VAN 3 · CAR 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:00 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 Hurricanes won 4–3 in overtime. They controlled 82% of 5v5 expected goals (5.69–1.27) and 69% of shot attempts (38–17), yet underperformed their xG by 1.69 goals. Vancouver, meanwhile, overperformed by 1.73—a variance that transformed a lopsided game into a one-goal finish.

K. Lankinen (VAN) stopped 1.69 above expected with a 0.895 save percentage across 38 shots. P. Kochetkov (CAR) gave up 1.73 more than expected at 0.824 save percentage, despite facing just 17 shots. The gap between them was the night's story.

The quality gap was wider still. Carolina generated 0.061 xG per shot; Vancouver managed 0.042. The Hurricanes' 12 high-danger chances to the Canucks' one should have sealed it. The Hurricanes converted zero of those 12. Sebastian Aho finished it—a snap shot from the high slot at 04:29 of overtime.

Both teams scored effectively off the rush: Carolina four on 36, Vancouver three on 17. The Hurricanes' 82% underlying advantage and 12 high-danger chances should have produced a blowout, but their 0-for-12 finishing and Kochetkov's -1.73 night allowed Lankinen's saves to keep it within one.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 14
VAN
3
CAR
4

Hurricanes run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.3 – 5.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
1.27
CAR
5.69
18% of the chances82%

The board read VAN 3, CAR 4. The chances read VAN 1.3, CAR 5.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−1.7
goals above expected
CAR5.69 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN1.27 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 02:45VANM. Sasson1–0
  2. P1 04:20CARA. Svechnikov1–1
  3. P1 05:14CARA. SvechnikovPP1–2
  4. P1 09:14VANE. PetterssonSH2–2
  5. P2 03:13VANC. GarlandPP3–2
  6. P3 06:26CART. Hall3–3
  7. OT 04:29CARS. Aho3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
24 shots
3
Final
85 shots
CAR
61 shots
4
VAN attackCAR attack
VAN CAR Goal
24
shots · 3 in
61
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANCAR
0 / 1
0.20 xG
High danger
0 / 12
2.77 xG
3 / 7
0.66 xG
Medium
3 / 19
2.33 xG
0 / 22
0.41 xG
Low
1 / 63
0.60 xG

High-danger looks: VAN 0 of 1, CAR 0 of 12.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
K. Lankinen
+1.7
VAN · 34/38
F
P. Kochetkov
−1.7
CAR · 14/17
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Canucks 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 4–8
  1. 02:45VANM. Sasson(M. MacEachern, L. Karlsson)1–0
  2. 04:20CARA. Svechnikov(S. Aho, S. Jarvis)1–1
  3. 05:14CARA. Svechnikovpower play(S. Gostisbehere, N. Ehlers)1–2
  4. 09:14VANE. Petterssonshorthanded2–2
2ndshots 8–18
  1. 03:13VANC. Garlandpower play(B. Boeser, E. Pettersson)3–2
3rdshots 4–8
  1. 06:26CART. Hall(S. Gostisbehere, A. Svechnikov)3–3
OTshots 1–4
  1. 04:29CARS. Aho(S. Gostisbehere)3–4

score reads VAN–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.69
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.7
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
0.943
CAR puck luck
Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
75.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.27Expected goals5.69
CAR 82% of the chance quality
17Shots on goal38
1High-danger chances12
30All attempts (Corsi)94
Adjusted for score: VAN 23% · CAR 77%
Faceoffs · CAR won65%off64%neu21%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN0 / 1 · 0.20 xG
CAR0 / 12 · 2.77 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN3 / 7 · 0.66 xG
CAR3 / 19 · 2.33 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 22 · 0.41 xG
CAR1 / 63 · 0.60 xG

CAR went 0-for-12 from high danger on 2.77 expected goals — 2.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
3 G · 1.27 xG · +1.7
CAR
4 G · 5.69 xG · -1.7
0123456

VAN finished +1.7 against expected, CAR -1.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
SNAP3/6
WRIST0/16
SLAP0/0
BACKHAND0/1
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
CRADLE0/0
OTHER0/6
CAR
SNAP3/32
WRIST0/11
SLAP1/7
BACKHAND0/5
TIP IN0/3
DEFLECTED0/2
CRADLE0/1
OTHER0/33
VAN
CAR
Off the rush
3 G on 17
0.96 xG
4 G on 36
4.06 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.20 xG
0 G on 8
1.07 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VAN went 3-for-6, CAR 3-for-32. CAR scored 4 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
K. Lankinen
VAN · 34/38 · .895
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/122.8+2.8
Medium3/192.3-0.7
Low1/630.6-0.4

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

P. Kochetkov
CAR · 14/17 · .824
-1.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium3/70.7-2.3
Low0/220.4+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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
24 shots
3
Final
85 shots
CAR
61 shots
4
VAN attackCAR attack
VAN CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN left, CAR 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. Gostisbehere
#4 · D · CAR
0 G · 3 A · 6 SOG · 26:22 on ice · +1
A. Svechnikov
#37 · R · CAR
2 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:10 on ice · +2
S. Aho
#20 · C · CAR
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 24:00 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Nov 14
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:57 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 2.3-3.0 Carolina win with the Hurricanes at 63% win probability. That margin reflects a gulf in five-on-five play that should hold up.

Carolina commands the underlying metrics decisively. The Hurricanes post 56.0% xG% to Vancouver's 44.0%, a 12-point gap that translates to clean territorial control. Corsi widens the spread further: 60.0% for Carolina versus 46.0% for Vancouver. When possession is contested, the Hurricanes occupy the offensive end.

Vancouver's recent form compounds the mismatch. The Canucks sit at minus-8 goal differential over their last 10 games—a red flag entering a matchup against a team that already owns the shot battle.

Both squads are running cold on PDO, but the regression works differently for each team. Carolina's 0.984 sits above Vancouver's 0.974—a narrow gap that nevertheless favors the team already dominating five-on-five play. As both regress toward normal, the Hurricanes' underlying superiority reasserts itself in the scoreline. Vancouver's overperformance is exhausted.

Player-level talent reinforces the edge. Jackson Blake drives Carolina's offense at 1.06 xG per 60 minutes with 14 goals, suggesting reliable finishing at 10.9% shooting and high-impact chances with 2 high-danger goals. Seth Jarvis leads in volume with 17 goals at 0.98 xG/60 and an 11.9% shooting rate that hints his hot streak will persist.

Vancouver's best offer is Filip Chytil and Drew O'Connor. Chytil generates 1.03 xG per 60 minutes but has managed only 3 goals and 0 assists with 1 high-danger chance—clear evidence of underfinishing despite the expected-goals volume. O'Connor contributes 13 goals and 11 assists at 0.85 xG/60, with 3 high-danger goals registered, but that differential suggests he's nearing his ceiling rather than ascending.

The Hurricanes win the underlying play by a wide margin and should convert that dominance into a win. PDO regression favors them, their shot-generation edge is real, and their offensive talent outproduces Vancouver's at the point of attack. Back Carolina to handle this assignment.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 63%
63%
CAR
Model favorite
37%
63%
VAN50CAR

CAR by 26 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.3–3.0 CAR; 17% 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
VAN← edge
edge →CAR
44.0%56.0%
46.0%60.0%
2.222.98
2.812.31
1.602.26
2.561.95
0.9740.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 0.984) says CAR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
VAN
4-5-1
-8 GD · 2d rest
CAR
6-4-0
+5 GD · 2d rest
0.974
VAN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.984
CAR 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 44.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Canucks are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
2 days rest.952 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CAR
Expected in goal
F. Andersen
2 days rest.889 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 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
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page