Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
Breakdown · CAR at BUF

U. Luukkonen stands tall as the Sabres edge the Hurricanes

The verdict · earned

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

CAR 1 · BUF 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:22 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 scoreboard looked like a rout—Sabres 4, Hurricanes 1—but the underlying metrics suggested the game was nearly even. Expected goals favored Buffalo 4.98–4.52, a margin so thin it amounts to a coin flip. What transformed a close contest into a convincing win? Catastrophic underperformance from Carolina, which fell 3.52 goals short of its expected total, versus Buffalo's modest 0.98-goal shortfall.

The difference sits squarely in net. U. Luukkonen was exceptional, stopping 29 of 30 shots (0.967 SV%) and saving 3.52 goals above expected. The Hurricanes generated seven high-danger opportunities and converted zero. That conversion rate won't hold.

F. Andersen kept Carolina alive despite the chaos, stopping 17 of 20 shots (0.850 SV%). But he couldn't compensate for his offense's paralysis. Carolina generated higher-quality looks than its shot total suggested, but precision escaped them. The Hurricanes created nine rebound opportunities without a single goal.

Buffalo executed with ruthless efficiency. The Sabres generated far more dangerous chances than Carolina relative to shot volume—an xG-per-shot rate of 0.106 to Carolina's 0.058. They were lethal on the rush, converting three goals from twenty-nine rush chances.

The stat sheet tilts Carolina's way in one regard: high-danger chances split 7–6 in the Hurricanes' favor. Yet Luukkonen's goaltending absorbed every one while Buffalo's finishers capitalized on their limited opportunities.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 23
CAR
1
BUF
4

U. Luukkonen stands tall as the Sabres edge the Hurricanes

Chances 4.5 – 5.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
4.52
BUF
4.98
48% of the chances52%

The board read CAR 1, BUF 4. The chances read CAR 4.5, BUF 5.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
−1.0
goals above expected
BUF4.98 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR4.52 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes left 3.5 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. P1 05:51BUFA. TuchPP0–1
  2. P1 14:36CARS. GostisbeherePP1–1
  3. P2 03:55BUFJ. Quinn1–2
  4. P2 18:36BUFB. Malenstyn1–3
  5. P3 19:38BUFT. ThompsonEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
56 shots
1
Final
93 shots
BUF
37 shots
4
CAR attackBUF attack
CAR BUF Goal
56
shots · 1 in
37
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARBUF
0 / 7
1.57 xG
High danger
2 / 6
2.48 xG
1 / 19
2.23 xG
Medium
2 / 18
2.14 xG
0 / 52
0.72 xG
Low
0 / 23
0.36 xG

The Hurricanes went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
U. Luukkonen
+3.5
BUF · 29/30
A
F. Andersen
+2.0
CAR · 17/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

U. Luukkonen stands tall as the Sabres edge the Hurricanes

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 5–7
  1. 05:51BUFA. Tuchpower play(R. McLeod, J. Doan)0–1
  2. 14:36CARS. Gostisbeherepower play1–1
2ndshots 12–10
  1. 03:55BUFJ. Quinn(R. McLeod, J. Zucker)1–2
  2. 18:36BUFB. Malenstyn(T. Kozak, P. Krebs)1–3
3rdshots 13–4
  1. 19:38BUFT. Thompsonempty net(Z. Benson)1–4

score reads CAR–BUF

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.98
BUF chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.072
BUF puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
37.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.52Expected goals4.98
BUF 52% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal21
7High-danger chances6
78All attempts (Corsi)47
Adjusted for score: CAR 66% · BUF 34%
Faceoffs · BUF won24%off44%neu60%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR0 / 7 · 1.57 xG
BUF2 / 6 · 2.48 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR1 / 19 · 2.23 xG
BUF2 / 18 · 2.14 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR0 / 52 · 0.72 xG
BUF0 / 23 · 0.36 xG

CAR went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.57 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
1 G · 4.52 xG · -3.5
BUF
4 G · 4.98 xG · -1.0
0123456

CAR finished -3.5 against expected, BUF -1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
WRIST1/31
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND0/6
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/3
BAT0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/22
BUF
WRIST3/26
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP0/2
TIP IN1/3
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/10
CAR
BUF
Off the rush
0 G on 35
2.57 xG
3 G on 29
3.97 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 9
1.37 xG
0 G on 1
0.16 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-31, BUF 3-for-26. BUF 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 · 17/20 · .850
+2.0
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/62.5+0.5
Medium2/182.1+0.1
Low0/230.4+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

U. Luukkonen
BUF · 29/30 · .967
+3.5
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.6+1.6
Medium1/192.2+1.2
Low0/520.7+0.7

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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
56 shots
1
Final
93 shots
BUF
37 shots
4
CAR attackBUF attack
CAR BUF Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, BUF 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
R. McLeod
#71 · C · BUF
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:14 on ice · +2
J. Quinn
#22 · R · BUF
1 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 20:39 on ice · +1
S. Gostisbehere
#4 · D · CAR
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:10 on ice · -3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Nov 23
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:20 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 Carolina at 2.8 goals to Buffalo's 2.5, with the Hurricanes owning 54% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. This is a game where the better team on paper may not survive the variance around it.

Carolina is the hotter side by record (7-1-2 in the last ten) and by far the better underlying team. The Hurricanes dominate the shot metrics—56.0% expected goals share and 60.0% Corsi at five-on-five—which should translate to territorial advantage throughout. Buffalo, meanwhile, sits at 50.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi%, metrics that hint at a team being outplayed more often than not. The Sabres are also underwater at -5 goal differential over their last ten games, a sign the game flow hasn't favored them.

The wrinkle is regression. Buffalo's PDO sits at 1.020, suggesting unsustainable goaltending or puck-luck inflation. That's the sort of number that tends to normalize, often downward. Carolina's PDO of 0.984 runs cold by contrast—they're due for positive variance to catch up. In a close game, that luck could matter.

Goaltending will be a wild card. Both U. Luukkonen and B. Bussi come in on back-to-backs. Plan for either a backup starter or a worn primary goaltender, either way meaning an edge to whoever can generate clean scoring chances.

Carolina's talent advantage lives in the forward group. Jackson Blake has been the team's most dangerous player at 1.06 expected goals per sixty and 14 goals on just 10.9% shooting, a sign of both volume and quality. Seth Jarvis, at 0.98 xG/60 and 17 goals, offers similar volume at a marginally lower efficiency. Both can hurt you.

Buffalo has answers, though less consistent ones. Jason Zucker leads at 1.07 xG/60 with 14 goals and an outsized six high-danger tallies—the kind of variance story that could flip back to Carolina's advantage. Josh Doan rounds out the secondary scoring at 1.01 xG/60 and 15 goals, though his 11.5% shooting rate suggests room to regress.

The defensive matchup slightly favors Carolina. Charles Alexis Legault has been Buffalo's weak link, a potential target on the forecheck. Buffalo's Jack Quinn similarly represents a seam on the other side, though Carolina's defensive structure has been sound enough that this may not matter much.

What you're watching is whether Carolina's underlying dominance survives the bounce. The Hurricanes should control play. Whether that translates to a win in a back-to-back-goaltending scenario depends on puck luck—the one thing the models can't lock down. That's why it's a coin flip, even for the better team.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 54%
54%
CAR
Model favorite
54%
46%
CAR50BUF

CAR by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.8–2.5 BUF; 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 →BUF
56.0%50.0%
60.0%49.0%
2.982.55
2.312.55
2.262.35
1.951.90
0.9841.020

CAR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CAR
7-1-2
+7 GD · 1d rest
BUF
4-5-1
-5 GD · 1d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.020
BUF 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 50.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — 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 50.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • U. Luukkonen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • B. Bussi is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Hurricanes are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
  • The Sabres are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CAR
Expected in goal
B. Bussi
back-to-back.893 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.

BUF
Expected in goal
U. Luukkonen
back-to-back.870 last start
Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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.

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
BUF
Jason Zucker14G 14A
1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh
Josh Doan15G 18A
1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next