Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
Breakdown · CAR at WPG

Hurricanes hold off the Jets

The verdict · earned

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

CAR 4 · WPG 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:11 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

Carolina's 4-3 win belies close underlying numbers: Winnipeg created slightly more (3.01 xG vs. 2.61), but the Hurricanes converted their chances more efficiently, generating four goals from just 46% of expected-goal value.

Shot attempts split evenly (28–28). Gabriel Vilardi's high-slot wrister at 04:13 of the third—the turning point—exemplified Carolina's precision. E. Comrie allowed 0.99 goals above expectation, a margin that decided the game.

Both teams scored three goals on the rush (Winnipeg 21 chances, Carolina 25), but Carolina added a fourth in open play while Winnipeg did not. Rebound hunting painted the same picture: Carolina converted 1 of 4 opportunities; Winnipeg generated 3 and finished 0 for 3—a miss that cost them.

B. Bussi's 25 saves (0.893 SV%) held. K. Miller and S. Aho each posted two assists, anchoring the Hurricanes' attack.

Winnipeg's underlying numbers suggest a closer game. The Jets created nearly as much as Carolina; they simply failed to finish. That's the gap between a one-goal loss and a statistical near-miss.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 21
CAR
4
WPG
3

Hurricanes hold off the Jets

Chances 3.0 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
3.01
WPG
2.61
54% of the chances46%

The board read CAR 4, WPG 3. The chances read CAR 3.0, WPG 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+1.0
goals above expected
CAR3.01 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG2.61 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 00:16CARJ. Staal1–0
  2. P1 03:45WPGJ. Morrissey1–1
  3. P1 09:28WPGG. VilardiPP1–2
  4. P2 03:08CARJ. Staal2–2
  5. P2 06:31CARS. JarvisSH3–2
  6. P3 03:19CARA. SvechnikovPP4–2
  7. P3 04:13WPGG. Vilardi4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
44 shots
4
Final
84 shots
WPG
40 shots
3
CAR attackWPG attack
CAR WPG Goal
44
shots · 4 in
40
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARWPG
1 / 3
1.09 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.36 xG
2 / 12
1.31 xG
Medium
3 / 14
1.64 xG
1 / 50
0.61 xG
Low
0 / 33
0.60 xG

High-danger looks: CAR 1 of 3, WPG 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
B. Bussi
−0.4
CAR · 25/28
D-
E. Comrie
−1.0
WPG · 24/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes hold off the Jets

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 12–11
  1. 00:16CARJ. Staal(J. Martinook)1–0
  2. 03:45WPGJ. Morrissey(M. Scheifele, D. DeMelo)1–1
  3. 09:28WPGG. Vilardipower play(C. Perfetti)1–2
2ndshots 9–4
  1. 03:08CARJ. Staal(J. Chatfield, K. Miller)2–2
  2. 06:31CARS. Jarvisshorthanded(S. Aho, K. Miller)3–2
3rdshots 7–13
  1. 03:19CARA. Svechnikovpower play(N. Ehlers, S. Aho)4–2
  2. 04:13WPGG. Vilardi(K. Connor)4–3

score reads CAR–WPG

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.01
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.000
CAR puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
57.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.01Expected goals2.61
CAR 54% of the chance quality
28Shots on goal28
3High-danger chances2
65All attempts (Corsi)49
Adjusted for score: CAR 56% · WPG 44%
Faceoffs · WPG won44%off50%neu55%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR1 / 3 · 1.09 xG
WPG0 / 2 · 0.36 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR2 / 12 · 1.31 xG
WPG3 / 14 · 1.64 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR1 / 50 · 0.61 xG
WPG0 / 33 · 0.60 xG

WPG went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.64 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
4 G · 3.01 xG · +1.0
WPG
3 G · 2.61 xG · +0.4
012345

CAR finished +1.0 against expected, WPG +0.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
WRIST1/26
SLAP1/8
SNAP1/5
TIP IN1/3
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/21
WPG
WRIST3/23
SLAP0/8
SNAP0/2
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/9
CAR
WPG
Off the rush
3 G on 25
1.68 xG
3 G on 21
1.87 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.41 xG
0 G on 3
0.39 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-26, WPG 3-for-23. 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
B. Bussi
CAR · 25/28 · .893
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium3/141.6-1.4
Low0/330.6+0.6

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

E. Comrie
WPG · 24/28 · .857
-1.0
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/31.1+0.1
Medium2/121.3-0.7
Low1/500.6-0.4

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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
44 shots
4
Final
84 shots
WPG
40 shots
3
CAR attackWPG attack
CAR WPG Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, WPG 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
K. Miller
#19 · D · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:36 on ice
S. Aho
#20 · C · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:48 on ice
G. Vilardi
#13 · C · WPG
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 18:49 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Nov 21
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:09 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 win, assigning Carolina 55% probability—a modest but clear edge. That lean rests on one compelling foundation: the Hurricanes simply control the play.

Carolina's 5v5 xG sits at 56.0% to Winnipeg's 48.0%, a gap that reflects consistent territorial advantage. The Corsi split widens it: the Hurricanes drive 60.0% of all shot attempts at evens, meaning they dictate pace and positioning. That's not tighter play—that's dominance.

Where PDO comes in: Carolina's is 0.984, running cold against league average. Winnipeg sits at 0.998, nearly baseline. The script suggests positive regression for the Hurricanes; a PDO bounce toward normalcy on top of play advantage makes the projection lean legitimate, not lucky.

One variable clouds the matchup. F. Andersen starts on a back-to-back. If Carolina rolls a backup or Andersen looks spent, the play advantage shrinks—goaltending is where underlying edges evaporate fastest.

The Hurricanes' attack leans on two names. Jackson Blake operates at 1.06 xG per 60 with 14 goals and 19 assists, shooting 10.9%—a sustainable rate given his volume. Seth Jarvis sits at 0.98 xG per 60 with 17 goals and 12 assists, shooting at 11.9%. Blake's 2 high-danger goals and Jarvis's 1 are where Carolina punches hardest.

Winnipeg counters through two. Kyle Connor has 25 goals and 30 assists at 0.83 xG per 60, shooting 13.0%—he finishes at a rate that demands attention. Nino Niederreiter has 6 goals and 6 assists at 0.87 xG per 60, 8.6% shooting; his 3 high-danger goals prove his threat level.

Defensively, Charles Alexis Legault is Carolina's named weak point; Colin Miller is Winnipeg's. Neither probably matters given how thoroughly the Hurricanes dominate play—but both are leverage points if pressure mounts.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 55%
55%
CAR
Model favorite
55%
45%
CAR50WPG

CAR by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.8–2.5 WPG; 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 →WPG
56.0%48.0%
60.0%49.0%
2.982.34
2.312.55
2.261.90
1.952.10
0.9840.998

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 0.998) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CAR
6-2-2
+5 GD · 1d rest
WPG
6-4-0
+4 GD · 2d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
WPG 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 48.0%.
  • 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 48.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • F. Andersen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CAR
Expected in goal
F. Andersen
back-to-back.842 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

WPG
Expected in goal
E. Comrie
2 days rest.909 last start
Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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
WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
Keep going

Where to next