Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
Breakdown · FLA at CAR

Panthers pull away from the Hurricanes

The verdict · earned

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

FLA 5 · CAR 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:48 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

Florida's 5–2 rout masked a nearly even underlying game. The Hurricanes generated 2.81 expected goals to the Panthers' 3.28—close enough that the final margin should have been one or two goals. Instead, goaltending widened it: S. Bobrovsky gave up 0.81 fewer goals than expected while F. Andersen gave up 1.72 more.

The shot pattern confirmed the competitive nature. Carolina held 46% of shot attempts (19–22 on goal) while the xG split finished 46–54%. High-danger chances were deadlocked at 4–4, yet save percentages told the full story—Andersen's 0.773 against Bobrovsky's 0.895 turned a close contest into a convincing win.

Florida's offensive edge came off the rush. The Panthers converted twice on 22 rush chances; Carolina managed two on 28, the type of efficiency variance that balloons a tight game. The Hurricanes created five rebound opportunities but converted none—crashing the net effectively without result, the kind of luck that separates winners from the rest.

S. Reinhart orchestrated the attack with three assists in 18:24. A. Ekblad contributed two assists over 21:11, his impact felt across all three zones. E. Luostarinen logged two assists in 16:30, a secondary contributor in Florida's balanced offensive display.

Seth Jones's wrist shot from a sharp angle (15:21, third period) marked the turning point—the moment momentum became irreversible.

Final: FLA 5 – CAR 2

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 23
FLA
5
CAR
2

Panthers pull away from the Hurricanes

Chances 3.3 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
3.28
CAR
2.81
54% of the chances46%

The board read FLA 5, CAR 2. The chances read FLA 3.3, CAR 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
+1.7
goals above expected
FLA3.28 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR2.81 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers scored 1.7 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 04:11CARE. Robinson0–1
  2. P2 01:58CARA. Svechnikov0–2
  3. P3 03:53FLAN. Mikkola1–2
  4. P3 06:17FLAL. Kunin2–2
  5. P3 07:00FLAA. Lundell3–2
  6. P3 09:57FLAS. Bennett4–2
  7. P3 15:21FLAS. JonesPP5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
42 shots
5
Final
85 shots
CAR
43 shots
2
FLA attackCAR attack
FLA CAR Goal
42
shots · 5 in
43
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLACAR
0 / 4
0.81 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.13 xG
4 / 16
1.97 xG
Medium
1 / 10
1.02 xG
1 / 34
0.50 xG
Low
1 / 42
0.67 xG

The Hurricanes went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
S. Bobrovsky
+0.8
FLA · 17/19
F
F. Andersen
−1.7
CAR · 17/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers pull away from 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 3–6
  1. 04:11CARE. Robinson(S. Aho, J. Nystrom)0–1
2ndshots 5–10
  1. 01:58CARA. Svechnikov(J. Staal)0–2
3rdshots 14–3
  1. 03:53FLAN. Mikkola(E. Luostarinen, S. Reinhart)1–2
  2. 06:17FLAL. Kunin(N. Gregor, A. Ekblad)2–2
  3. 07:00FLAA. Lundell(S. Reinhart, E. Luostarinen)3–2
  4. 09:57FLAS. Bennett(A. Greer, A. Ekblad)4–2
  5. 15:21FLAS. Jonespower play(S. Reinhart, B. Marchand)5–2

score reads FLA–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.28
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.057
FLA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
49.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.28Expected goals2.81
FLA 54% of the chance quality
22Shots on goal19
4High-danger chances4
54All attempts (Corsi)56
Adjusted for score: FLA 52% · CAR 48%
Faceoffs · CAR won58%off50%neu63%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA0 / 4 · 0.81 xG
CAR0 / 4 · 1.13 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA4 / 16 · 1.97 xG
CAR1 / 10 · 1.02 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA1 / 34 · 0.50 xG
CAR1 / 42 · 0.67 xG

FLA went 4-for-16 from medium danger on 1.97 expected goals — 2.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
5 G · 3.28 xG · +1.7
CAR
2 G · 2.81 xG · -0.8
0123456

FLA finished +1.7 against expected, CAR -0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
SNAP2/17
WRIST2/12
TIP IN0/5
SLAP1/5
DEFLECTED0/2
BACKHAND0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/12
CAR
SNAP2/19
WRIST0/7
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/6
DEFLECTED0/1
BACKHAND0/3
POKE0/0
OTHER0/13
FLA
CAR
Off the rush
2 G on 22
1.97 xG
2 G on 28
2.04 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 1
0.14 xG
0 G on 5
0.64 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: FLA went 2-for-17, CAR 2-for-19. FLA 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
S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 17/19 · .895
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.1+1.1
Medium1/101.0+0.0
Low1/420.7-0.3

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

F. Andersen
CAR · 17/22 · .773
-1.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.8+0.8
Medium4/162.0-2.0
Low1/340.5-0.5

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
42 shots
5
Final
85 shots
CAR
43 shots
2
FLA attackCAR attack
FLA CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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. Reinhart
#13 · C · FLA
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 18:24 on ice · +1
A. Ekblad
#5 · D · FLA
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 21:11 on ice
E. Luostarinen
#27 · C · FLA
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:30 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 23
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:45 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 2.4–2.9 Hurricanes victory with Carolina at 58% win probability. The edge is territorial and raw — Carolina drives play, but Florida has something to prove.

Carolina owns the underlying metrics. The Hurricanes generate 56.0% 5v5 expected goals and command 60.0% Corsi, which means they're winning possession battles consistently and establishing camp in dangerous ice. That gap — seven percentage points in xG% — is significant. Florida counteracts this with superior conversion: a 0.989 PDO against Carolina's 0.984. The difference is thin, but PDO is mean-reverting, and the Hurricanes are running cold.

That regression angle matters most. Carolina's 0.984 PDO suggests their goals-for and goals-against aren't balanced by underlying volume — a recipe for positive regression. If they normalize even modestly, their shot advantage converts into wins the model already favors.

Florida carries rest equity: three days off to Carolina's zero. That gap sometimes flattens over sixty minutes; sometimes it's the margin between fresh legs and scrambling defense in the third.

Players to Watch

Sam Bennett (0.97 xG/60, 18G 19A, 6 HD goals, 13.1% shooting) drives Florida's attack; Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 17G 9A, 3 HD goals, 19.5% shooting) provides the secondary threat. For Carolina, Jackson Blake (1.06 xG/60, 14G 19A, 2 HD goals, 10.9% shooting) leads the charge, and Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17G 12A, 1 HD goal, 11.9% shooting) sustains it.

The story boils down to efficiency and recovery. Carolina owns the volume game; Florida's bet is that superior PDO holds and Carolina's rest deficit compounds as the clock moves. If the Hurricanes stay cold despite generating chances, Florida leaves with the upset.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 59%
59%
CAR
Model favorite
41%
59%
FLA50CAR

CAR by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score FLA 2.4–2.9 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
FLA← edge
edge →CAR
49.0%56.0%
52.0%60.0%
2.482.98
2.562.31
1.982.26
2.211.95
0.9890.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.984) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 0–10
FLA
7-2-1
+5 GD · 3d rest
CAR
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.989
FLA 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 49.0%.
  • 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 49.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Panthers have 3 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
FLA
Expected in goal
D. Tarasov
3 days rest.839 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CAR
Expected in goal
—
no game on file

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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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