Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Mon, Nov 17 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at BOS

Hurricanes run the Bruins off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Nov 17
CARCarolina Hurricanes3BOSBoston Bruins1
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 3 · BOS 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:24 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

Boston put 30 shots on goal, Carolina 32, giving the Bruins 48% of shot attempts—yet they lost 3–1 to a team that won where it mattered: expected goals. Carolina controlled 61% of 5v5 xG at 4.13 to 2.62, a margin that aligns perfectly with the scoreboard.

The Bruins' five high-danger chances looked promising versus Carolina's four, but conversion told a different story. The Hurricanes buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks (50%) while Boston underperformed their xG by 1.62—a 1.62-goal shortfall that turned volume into defeat.

Goaltending couldn't bridge the gap. P. Kochetkov (CAR) saved 1.62 goals above expected, while J. Swayman (BOS) saved 1.13 above expected despite allowing three. Swayman's 0.906 save percentage was solid, but shot quality predicts results faster than variance. The Hurricanes engineered dangerous chances; Boston engineered volume.

Carolina's rush attack was clinical: two goals off forty chances. Riley Tufte's snap shot from the doorstep at 19:50 of the third sealed what xG had already decided.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 17
CAR
3
BOS
1

Hurricanes run the Bruins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.1 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
4.13
BOS
2.62
61% of the chances39%

The board read CAR 3, BOS 1. The chances read CAR 4.1, BOS 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−1.1
goals above expected
CAR4.13 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS2.62 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Bruins left 1.6 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. P2 08:25CARJ. Staal1–0
  2. P2 13:34CARM. Jankowski2–0
  3. P3 17:27CART. Hall3–0
  4. P3 19:50BOSR. TuftePP3–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
58 shots
3
Final
96 shots
BOS
38 shots
1
CAR attackBOS attack
CAR BOS Goal
58
shots · 3 in
38
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARBOS
2 / 4
1.12 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.27 xG
1 / 19
2.01 xG
Medium
0 / 8
0.81 xG
0 / 57
1.00 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.54 xG

The Hurricanes buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
P. Kochetkov
+1.6
CAR · 29/30
B+
J. Swayman
+1.1
BOS · 29/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Bruins 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 10–9no goals
    2ndshots 13–7
    1. 08:25CARJ. Staal(J. Nystrom, W. Carrier)1–0
    2. 13:34CARM. Jankowski(T. Hall, S. Walker)2–0
    3rdshots 9–14
    1. 17:27CART. Hall(J. Nystrom)3–0
    2. 19:50BOSR. Tuftepower play(M. Eyssimont, H. Jokiharju)3–1

    score reads CAR–BOS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.13
    CAR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.017
    CAR puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    62.5%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.13Expected goals2.62
    CAR 61% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal30
    4High-danger chances5
    80All attempts (Corsi)48
    Adjusted for score: CAR 59% · BOS 41%
    Faceoffs · BOS won48%off64%neu56%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CAR2 / 4 · 1.12 xG
    BOS1 / 5 · 1.27 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CAR1 / 19 · 2.01 xG
    BOS0 / 8 · 0.81 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CAR0 / 57 · 1.00 xG
    BOS0 / 35 · 0.54 xG

    CAR went 1-for-19 from medium danger on 2.01 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CAR
    3 G · 4.13 xG · -1.1
    BOS
    1 G · 2.62 xG · -1.6
    012345

    CAR finished -1.1 against expected, BOS -1.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CAR
    WRIST1/27
    SLAP0/8
    SNAP1/9
    TIP IN0/8
    BACKHAND1/4
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/22
    BOS
    WRIST0/23
    SLAP0/5
    SNAP1/4
    TIP IN0/1
    BACKHAND0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/10
    CAR
    BOS
    Off the rush
    2 G on 40
    3.41 xG
    0 G on 24
    1.95 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 3
    0.27 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.26 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-27, BOS 0-for-23. CAR 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
    P. Kochetkov
    CAR · 29/30 · .967
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.3+0.3
    Medium0/80.8+0.8
    Low0/350.5+0.5

    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 · 29/32 · .906
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/41.1-0.9
    Medium1/192.0+1.0
    Low0/571.0+1.0

    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

    96 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CAR
    58 shots
    3
    Final
    96 shots
    BOS
    38 shots
    1
    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
    J. Nystrom
    #64 · D · CAR
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:01 on ice · +2
    T. Hall
    #71 · L · CAR
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 13:51 on ice · +2
    H. Jokiharju
    #20 · D · BOS
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 20:32 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Nov 17
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:22 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 Hurricanes victory with Carolina favored at 56% win probability. The edge stems from two distinct advantages: Carolina's superiority in underlying play and regression bearing down on Boston's inflated goal-scoring efficiency.

    The Hurricanes control the underlying metrics decisively. Carolina registers 56.0% 5v5 expected goals to Boston's 47.0%, indicating substantially higher offensive quality. Territorial dominance compounds the advantage — a 60.0% Corsi split means the Hurricanes dictate possession, translating it into scoring chances at a much higher rate than the Bruins.

    PDO regression is the second lever. Boston runs hot at 1.023, with goals outpacing expected production, and should expect some regression. Carolina runs cold at 0.984, tracking below expectation, and is due for positive regression. Both converge toward equilibrium. The Hurricanes benefit from superior process and mean reversion working in the same direction.

    Carolina's scoring load centers on Jackson Blake, who carries 1.06 xG/60 alongside 14 goals and 19 assists. His 10.9% shooting rate indicates elite finishing; he has converted 2 high-danger chances into goals. Seth Jarvis operates at 0.98 xG/60 with 17 goals and 12 assists, posting 11.9% shooting and 1 high-danger goal — tracking slightly above league norms in efficiency.

    Boston's Viktor Arvidsson matches Blake's intensity at 1.04 xG/60 with 18 goals, 24 assists, and 2 high-danger goals. His 13.0% shooting percentage suggests output running close to expectation, not buoyed by luck. Tanner Jeannot (0.75 xG/60, 6 goals, 14 assists, 8.3% shooting) presents a lower-volume threat but has still converted 2 high-danger chances.

    The defensive vulnerabilities — Charles Alexis Legault for Carolina and Elias Lindholm for Boston — matter in tight play but don't alter the underlying picture. Carolina's process edge combined with regressive pressure on Boston's efficiency gives the Hurricanes the model's lean.

    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 · No games yet
    CAR
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    BOS
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d 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 Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
    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