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

Hurricanes run the Capitals off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

CAR 3 · WSH 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:02 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

L. Thompson stole this one. The Hurricanes edged the Capitals 3-2 in a shootout despite commanding the underlying numbers — and Thompson's 37-save performance (0.949 SV%, +3.09 above expected) was the difference.

Carolina dominated the 5v5 play. They controlled 62% of expected goals (5.09–3.08), held shot attempts to 39% (25–39), and created the more dangerous chances (6 high-danger shots to Washington's 7). B. Bussi was solid in goal (23/25, 0.920 SV%, +1.08 above expected), but the Capitals' goalie was phenomenal — 100% on high-danger chances, a wall when the Hurricanes pressed hardest.

Where Carolina stumbled: they couldn't finish. 0 for 7 on high-danger looks. They also underperformed their underlying metrics (2.09 below xG), wasting the quality they created.

Washington, meanwhile, squeezed everything from their limited opportunities. Off the rush — where they found just 28 chances — they scored twice. Carolina had 36 rush attempts and also scored twice, a sign of how marginal Washington's efficiency was everywhere except between the pipes.

Seth Jarvis's snap shot from the doorstep decided it in the shootout, but Thompson nearly stole that too.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 11
CAR
3
WSH
2

Hurricanes run the Capitals off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.1 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
5.09
WSH
3.08
62% of the chances38%

The board read CAR 3, WSH 2. The chances read CAR 5.1, WSH 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−2.1
goals above expected
CAR5.09 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WSH3.08 expected · 2 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. P2 05:00WSHC. McMichael0–1
  2. P2 13:43CARN. Ehlers1–1
  3. P3 11:32WSHN. Dowd1–2
  4. P3 17:45CARL. StankovenPP2–2
  5. SO 00:00CARS. JarvisPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
63 shots
3
Final
102 shots
WSH
39 shots
2
CAR attackWSH attack
CAR WSH Goal
63
shots · 3 in
39
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARWSH
0 / 7
1.88 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.39 xG
2 / 24
2.49 xG
Medium
0 / 13
1.28 xG
0 / 52
0.72 xG
Low
1 / 27
0.41 xG

High-danger looks: CAR 0 of 7, WSH 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
L. Thompson
+3.1
WSH · 37/39
B+
B. Bussi
+1.1
CAR · 23/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Capitals 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 13–4no goals
    2ndshots 16–5
    1. 05:00WSHC. McMichael(A. Ovechkin, R. Sandin)0–1
    2. 13:43CARN. Ehlers(L. Stankoven, A. Nikishin)1–1
    3rdshots 10–13
    1. 11:32WSHN. Dowd(R. Sandin, C. McMichael)1–2
    2. 17:45CARL. Stankovenpower play(N. Ehlers, J. Chatfield)2–2
    OTshots 0–3no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00CARS. Jarvispower play2–2

      score reads CAR–WSH

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      5.09
      CAR chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −2.1
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      0.981
      CAR puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      64.3%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      5.09Expected goals3.08
      CAR 62% of the chance quality
      39Shots on goal25
      7High-danger chances6
      83All attempts (Corsi)46
      Adjusted for score: CAR 65% · WSH 35%
      Faceoffs · WSH won38%off20%neu47%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      CAR0 / 7 · 1.88 xG
      WSH1 / 6 · 1.39 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      CAR2 / 24 · 2.49 xG
      WSH0 / 13 · 1.28 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      CAR0 / 52 · 0.72 xG
      WSH1 / 27 · 0.41 xG

      CAR went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.88 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      CAR
      3 G · 5.09 xG · -2.1
      WSH
      2 G · 3.08 xG · -1.1
      0123456

      CAR finished -2.1 against expected, WSH -1.1.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      CAR
      SNAP2/36
      SLAP0/7
      TIP IN0/6
      WRIST0/8
      BACKHAND0/2
      BAT0/2
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      DEFLECTED0/0
      OTHER0/22
      WSH
      SNAP0/18
      SLAP0/5
      TIP IN1/5
      WRIST0/2
      BACKHAND1/4
      BAT0/0
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      DEFLECTED0/1
      OTHER0/10
      CAR
      WSH
      Off the rush
      2 G on 36
      3.65 xG
      2 G on 28
      2.75 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 6
      0.99 xG
      0 G on 1
      0.11 xG

      Snap shots carried the volume: CAR went 2-for-36, WSH 0-for-18. 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
      B. Bussi
      CAR · 23/25 · .920
      +1.1
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/61.4+0.4
      Medium0/131.3+1.3
      Low1/270.4-0.6

      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

      L. Thompson
      WSH · 37/39 · .949
      +3.1
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/71.9+1.9
      Medium2/242.5+0.5
      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

      102 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      CAR
      63 shots
      3
      Final
      102 shots
      WSH
      39 shots
      2
      CAR attackWSH attack
      CAR WSH Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, WSH 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. Sandin
      #38 · D · WSH
      0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:54 on ice · +1
      C. McMichael
      #24 · L · WSH
      1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:27 on ice · +1
      N. Ehlers
      #27 · L · CAR
      1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 17:54 on ice · +2
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Thu, Dec 11
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:59 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 CAR 2.8 - 2.6 WSH game with the Hurricanes at 54% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

      Carolina dominates the underlying metrics. The Hurricanes post a 56.0% xG% against Washington's 50.0%, and drive territorial control at 60.0% Corsi to the Capitals' 49.0%. Expect them to dictate pace and possession.

      Washington's strength is recent form. They're 8-1-1 in their last 10 games—the far hotter team—and they enter with three days of rest to Carolina's one. B. Bussi is on a back-to-back, which muddies that advantage; watch for either a tired starter or a backup in goal.

      The regression signals work in opposite directions. Washington's 1.018 PDO indicates they're running hot and overdue for negative variance. Carolina's 0.984 PDO means they're running cold and due for positive regression. Neither team has a luck buffer to spare.

      Offensively, the talent is close but tilts different ways. Jackson Blake leads Carolina with 1.06 xG/60, 14 goals, and 19 assists. Seth Jarvis matches the creation rate at 0.98 xG/60 and has 17 goals and 12 assists. Washington counters with Alex Ovechkin at 0.97 xG/60, 19 goals, and 17 assists—slightly behind in expected output but ahead in actual results. Anthony Beauvillier adds depth at 0.89 xG/60.

      The critical unknowns: Can Carolina contain Ovechkin without exposing Charles Alexis Legault as a weak link? Can Washington manage the Blake-Jarvis combination while Declan Chisholm's on the ice?

      This is competing edges at their purest—elite skill and upside for Carolina against current form and rest for Washington. The model splits the difference, and so should you.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      CAR 54%
      54%
      CAR
      Model favorite
      54%
      46%
      CAR50WSH

      CAR by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.8–2.6 WSH; 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 →WSH
      56.0%50.0%
      60.0%49.0%
      2.982.62
      2.312.62
      2.262.18
      1.951.79
      0.9841.018

      CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.018) says WSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      CAR
      5-4-1
      -1 GD · 1d rest
      WSH
      8-1-1
      +21 GD · 3d rest
      0.984
      CAR PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.018
      WSH 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 Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — 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.
      • B. Bussi is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Capitals are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).
      • The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
      • The Capitals have 2 more days of rest.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      CAR
      Expected in goal
      B. Bussi
      back-to-back.958 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.

      WSH
      Expected in goal
      L. Thompson
      3 days rest1.000 last start
      Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 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
      WSH
      Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
      0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
      Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
      0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next