Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
← Wed, Nov 19 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at MIN

Wild steal one from the Hurricanes against the run of play

Final / OTWed, Nov 19
CARCarolina Hurricanes3MINMinnesota Wild4
The verdict · stolen

The Wild stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.76–2.05 and won anyway.

CAR 3 · MIN 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:48 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

Minnesota's 4-3 shootout win over Carolina was a mismatch of scorelines and underlying numbers. The Wild held 30% of expected goals (2.05–4.76), so they won despite being massively outplayed in shot quality.

The Hurricanes dominated. They held 70% of expected goals at 5v5 and created 6 high-danger chances to Minnesota's 2. By the metrics that predict wins, Carolina was the better team. But Minnesota got the goal.

Goaltending decided the outcome. J. Wallstedt (MIN) posted 0.933 SV% and stopped 1.76 goals above expected on 45 shots. He was perfect on high-danger chances (6-for-6) and stole this game. F. Andersen (CAR) finished 0.842 SV% and was 0.95 goals below expected.

Carolina's collapse came in finishing. They went 0–6 on high-danger chances at 5v5, then scored 2 goals from low-danger looks. Minnesota, meanwhile, was lethal on the rush (3 goals on 19 chances) and won the shootout on Matt Boldy's backhander from the doorstep.

This was a heist. The Wild didn't outplay the Hurricanes. They simply didn't let them cash in.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Nov 19
CAR
3
MIN
4

Wild steal one from the Hurricanes against the run of play

Chances 4.8 – 2.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
4.76
MIN
2.05
70% of the chances30%

The board read CAR 3, MIN 4. The chances read CAR 4.8, MIN 2.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+1.9
goals above expected
MIN2.05 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR4.76 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Wild scored 1.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:54MINB. Faber0–1
  2. P1 11:46MINM. BoldySH0–2
  3. P2 14:03CARJ. Blake1–2
  4. P3 00:15MINM. Zuccarello1–3
  5. P3 06:34CARS. Aho2–3
  6. P3 18:54CARJ. BlakePP3–3
  7. SO 00:00MINM. BoldyPP3–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
70 shots
3
Final
100 shots
MIN
30 shots
4
CAR attackMIN attack
CAR MIN Goal
70
shots · 3 in
30
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARMIN
0 / 6
1.51 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.39 xG
1 / 19
2.04 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.22 xG
2 / 70
1.21 xG
Low
0 / 19
0.44 xG

The Hurricanes went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Wallstedt
+1.8
MIN · 42/45
D-
F. Andersen
−0.9
CAR · 16/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild steal one from the Hurricanes against the run of play

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 14–11
  1. 01:54MINB. Faber(M. Zuccarello, D. Yurov)0–1
  2. 11:46MINM. Boldyshorthanded0–2
2ndshots 16–5
  1. 14:03CARJ. Blake(S. Walker, L. Stankoven)1–2
3rdshots 13–3
  1. 00:15MINM. Zuccarello(K. Kaprizov, D. Yurov)1–3
  2. 06:34CARS. Aho(A. Svechnikov, S. Jarvis)2–3
  3. 18:54CARJ. Blakepower play(N. Ehlers, S. Gostisbehere)3–3
OTshots 2–0no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00MINM. Boldypower play3–3

    score reads CAR–MIN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.05
    MIN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.9
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.059
    MIN puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    25.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.76Expected goals2.05
    CAR 70% of the chance quality
    45Shots on goal19
    6High-danger chances2
    95All attempts (Corsi)33
    Adjusted for score: CAR 78% · MIN 22%
    Faceoffs · MIN won35%off39%neu75%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CAR0 / 6 · 1.51 xG
    MIN1 / 2 · 0.39 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CAR1 / 19 · 2.04 xG
    MIN2 / 12 · 1.22 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CAR2 / 70 · 1.21 xG
    MIN0 / 19 · 0.44 xG

    CAR went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.51 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CAR
    3 G · 4.76 xG · -1.8
    MIN
    4 G · 2.05 xG · +1.9
    0123456

    CAR finished -1.8 against expected, MIN +1.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CAR
    WRIST1/44
    SNAP0/9
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN2/6
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/28
    MIN
    WRIST2/17
    SNAP0/2
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN1/2
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/6
    CAR
    MIN
    Off the rush
    3 G on 42
    3.44 xG
    3 G on 19
    1.46 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 7
    0.45 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.35 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-44, MIN 2-for-17. CAR 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
    F. Andersen
    CAR · 16/19 · .842
    -0.9
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/20.4-0.6
    Medium2/121.2-0.8
    Low0/190.4+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. Wallstedt
    MIN · 42/45 · .933
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.5+1.5
    Medium1/192.0+1.0
    Low2/701.2-0.8

    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

    100 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CAR
    70 shots
    3
    Final
    100 shots
    MIN
    30 shots
    4
    CAR attackMIN attack
    CAR MIN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, MIN 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. Blake
    #53 · R · CAR
    2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 19:43 on ice · +1
    M. Zuccarello
    #36 · R · MIN
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:59 on ice · +1
    D. Yurov
    #22 · R · MIN
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 14:20 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Nov 19
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:47 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 2.7–2.5 Hurricanes victory with Carolina at 52% win probability—coin-flip odds.

    Carolina owns the underlying play. The Hurricanes generate 56.0% 5v5 expected goals versus Minnesota's 52.0%, and drive Corsi at 60.0% against the Wild's 48.0%, meaning possession tilts toward the Carolina net. But the Hurricanes' PDO of 0.984 marks a team running cold, converting below average and due for positive regression. Minnesota's 1.007 PDO is the inverse: the Wild are riding luck higher.

    The tension resolves in Carolina's favor. Better team, unluckier team. When that gap closes, the Hurricanes win.

    Players to Watch

    Jackson Blake leads Carolina at 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 19 assists, plus 2 high-danger goals on 10.9% shooting. Seth Jarvis, at 0.98 xG/60, has 17 goals and 12 assists on 11.9% shooting—variance cuts both ways.

    Matt Boldy paces Minnesota at 0.89 xG/60 with 22 goals and 18 assists, including 5 high-danger goals on 13.7% shooting, an elite pace that either holds or regresses. Robby Fabbri, at 0.88 xG/60, has 2 goals and 3 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and 6.9% shooting—the quartet's lowest conversion rate.

    The Pick

    The 52% reflects real uncertainty. But 60% Corsi is structural, not noise. Minnesota's PDO is fragile. When one team is due for positive regression and the other is riding luck, the team with possession wins the variance trade.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CAR 52%
    52%
    CAR
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    CAR50MIN

    CAR by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CAR 2.7–2.5 MIN; 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 →MIN
    56.0%52.0%
    60.0%48.0%
    2.982.55
    2.312.40
    2.262.04
    1.951.93
    0.9841.007

    CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.007) says MIN 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
    MIN
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.984
    CAR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.007
    MIN 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 52.0%.
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive 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
    MIN
    Matt Boldy22G 18A
    0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Robby Fabbri2G 3A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page