Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Fri, Nov 28 · the slate
Breakdown · WPG at CAR

Hurricanes run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalFri, Nov 28
WPGWinnipeg Jets1CARCarolina Hurricanes5
The verdict · earned

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

WPG 1 · CAR 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:08 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 5-1 victory over Winnipeg was built on exceptional finishing. The Hurricanes scored 5 goals on just 3.64 expected goals—a 1.36-goal overperformance.

The underlying metrics explained the blowout. Carolina held 73% of shot attempts (35–13) and 69% of expected goals (3.64–1.61), winning high-danger chances 6–1.

The efficiency came from two sources. Carolina scored twice from low-danger areas and was lethal on the rush, converting 3 goals on 30 chances. T. Milic posted 30 saves on 34 shots for a 0.882 save percentage; B. Bussi went 12 for 13, posting a 0.923 save percentage and outperforming expected by 0.61 goals.

Alexander Nikishin's slap shot from the wing in the third period (19:37) marked the moment Winnipeg's deficit became insurmountable.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 28
WPG
1
CAR
5

Hurricanes run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.6 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
1.61
CAR
3.64
31% of the chances69%

The board read WPG 1, CAR 5. The chances read WPG 1.6, CAR 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+1.4
goals above expected
CAR3.64 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG1.61 expected · 1 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 16:06CARS. Jarvis0–1
  2. P2 10:41WPGM. Scheifele1–1
  3. P3 11:52CARJ. Martinook1–2
  4. P3 12:39CARS. Jarvis1–3
  5. P3 18:57CARS. JarvisEN1–4
  6. P3 19:37CARA. Nikishin1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
24 shots
1
Final
75 shots
CAR
51 shots
5
WPG attackCAR attack
WPG CAR Goal
24
shots · 1 in
51
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGCAR
0 / 1
0.23 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.33 xG
1 / 11
1.12 xG
Medium
2 / 14
1.55 xG
0 / 28
0.27 xG
Low
2 / 51
0.76 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 0 of 1, CAR 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
B. Bussi
+0.6
CAR · 12/13
D
T. Milic
−0.4
WPG · 30/34
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Jets 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 5–10
  1. 16:06CARS. Jarvis(S. Gostisbehere, S. Aho)0–1
2ndshots 5–10
  1. 10:41WPGM. Scheifele(G. Vilardi)1–1
3rdshots 3–15
  1. 11:52CARJ. Martinook(M. Jankowski, S. Gostisbehere)1–2
  2. 12:39CARS. Jarvis(K. Miller, A. Svechnikov)1–3
  3. 18:57CARS. Jarvisempty net(A. Svechnikov)1–4
  4. 19:37CARA. Nikishin(J. Robidas, E. Robinson)1–5

score reads WPG–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.64
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.045
CAR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
64.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.61Expected goals3.64
CAR 69% of the chance quality
13Shots on goal35
1High-danger chances6
40All attempts (Corsi)71
Adjusted for score: WPG 38% · CAR 62%
Faceoffs · CAR won63%off52%neu25%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG0 / 1 · 0.23 xG
CAR1 / 6 · 1.33 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG1 / 11 · 1.12 xG
CAR2 / 14 · 1.55 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG0 / 28 · 0.27 xG
CAR2 / 51 · 0.76 xG

CAR went 2-for-51 from low danger on 0.76 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
1 G · 1.61 xG · -0.6
CAR
5 G · 3.64 xG · +1.4
0123456

WPG finished -0.6 against expected, CAR +1.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
WRIST1/14
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/16
CAR
WRIST0/19
SNAP3/18
SLAP1/6
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/5
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/20
WPG
CAR
Off the rush
1 G on 17
1.54 xG
3 G on 30
2.27 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 2
0.37 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-14, CAR 0-for-19. 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
T. Milic
WPG · 30/34 · .882
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.3+0.3
Medium2/141.6-0.5
Low2/510.8-1.2

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

B. Bussi
CAR · 12/13 · .923
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium1/111.1+0.1
Low0/280.3+0.3

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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WPG
24 shots
1
Final
75 shots
CAR
51 shots
5
WPG attackCAR attack
WPG CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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. Jarvis
#24 · R · CAR
3 G · 0 A · 8 SOG · 18:59 on ice · +2
S. Gostisbehere
#4 · D · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:28 on ice · +2
A. Svechnikov
#37 · R · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:47 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Nov 28
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:06 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 2.3–2.9 goal victory for Carolina with a 60% win probability. The Hurricanes' dominance in underlying play justifies the lean: they're operating at a 56.0% 5v5 expected goals share versus Winnipeg's 48.0%, and they're driving territorial control at 60.0% Corsi versus the Jets' 49.0%.

This edge is reinforced by recent form. Carolina is 5-3-2 over their last ten games, while Winnipeg sits at -8 goal differential over the same span. The momentum belongs to the Hurricanes.

Where PDO regression enters: Carolina's is 0.984—running cold—while Winnipeg's is 0.998. Positive regression favors the Hurricanes, widening their edge as underlying play catches up to results.

Both F. Andersen and E. Comrie are on back-to-backs, risking a backup start or fatigued starter. A tired net erases Carolina's 2.3-goal edge quickly.

Carolina's scoring depth is the fundamental problem for Winnipeg. Jackson Blake leads the game at 1.06 xG/60, with 14G 19A and 2 HD goals (10.9% shooting). Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17G 12A, 1 HD goals, 11.9% shooting) provides secondary scoring Winnipeg cannot match. Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting) is the Jets' counterweight, but Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting) remains secondary despite his efficiency.

Colin Miller represents Winnipeg's defensive weakness; Charles Alexis Legault carries the same for Carolina. Both teams sit at 0% for high-danger and 0% for rebound goals—outliers that normalize before the season closes. The Hurricanes are the model's lean because their depth is real.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 60%
60%
CAR
Model favorite
40%
60%
WPG50CAR

CAR by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score WPG 2.3–2.9 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
WPG← edge
edge →CAR
48.0%56.0%
49.0%60.0%
2.342.98
2.552.31
1.902.26
2.101.95
0.9980.984

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
WPG
3-7-0
-8 GD · 1d rest
CAR
5-3-2
-2 GD · 1d rest
0.998
WPG 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 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.
  • E. Comrie is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Hurricanes are the hotter team by points pace (5-3-2 in their last 10).
  • The Jets 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
WPG
Expected in goal
E. Comrie
back-to-back.886 last start
Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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.

CAR
Expected in goal
F. Andersen
back-to-back.824 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.

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
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
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