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

Hurricanes run the Red Wings off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

DET 2 · CAR 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:55 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 Hurricanes beat Detroit 5-2, and the underlying numbers show they were far more dominant than the scoreline suggests. Carolina held 70% of 5v5 expected goals (6.93–2.96), 66% of shot attempts (38–20), and created 16 high-danger chances to Detroit's 5.

Carolina underperformed their xG by 1.93 goals—they had quality chances and didn't capitalize. Detroit underperformed theirs by 0.96. Two of Carolina's goals came from low-danger opportunities, the type a defensive team should prevent. The Hurricanes' edge was clearest in transition: three goals on 39 rush chances versus Detroit's two on 22, a gap that reflected both execution and the teams' relative pace.

J. Gibson stopped 2.93 goals above expected (33 saves on 37 shots, 0.892 SV%), performing at an elite level for Detroit that still couldn't prevent the rout. The game's turning point came early in the third period: Jordan Martinook's wrist shot from the top of the circles at 18:39, when the outcome was already determined. Carolina generated six rebound opportunities but converted none.

B. Bussi made 18 of 20 saves (0.900 SV%, +0.96 above expected). Twenty-one high-danger chances were generated combined, an unusually open game won decisively by the team that created the most danger.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 27
DET
2
CAR
5

Hurricanes run the Red Wings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.0 – 6.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
2.96
CAR
6.93
30% of the chances70%

The board read DET 2, CAR 5. The chances read DET 3.0, CAR 6.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−1.9
goals above expected
CAR6.93 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
DET2.96 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. P1 12:39DETM. Rasmussen1–0
  2. P2 03:22CARJ. Blake1–1
  3. P2 04:37CARE. Robinson1–2
  4. P2 15:22CARS. Gostisbehere1–3
  5. P3 03:11DETA. CoppPP2–3
  6. P3 13:09CARA. Svechnikov2–4
  7. P3 18:39CARJ. MartinookEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
33 shots
2
Final
92 shots
CAR
59 shots
5
DET attackCAR attack
DET CAR Goal
33
shots · 2 in
59
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETCAR
1 / 5
1.15 xG
High danger
2 / 16
4.30 xG
1 / 12
1.37 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.78 xG
0 / 22
0.44 xG
Low
2 / 46
0.85 xG

The Hurricanes buried 2 of 16 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Gibson
+2.9
DET · 33/37
B+
B. Bussi
+1.0
CAR · 18/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Red Wings 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 5–15
  1. 12:39DETM. Rasmussen(J. Compher)1–0
2ndshots 4–17
  1. 03:22CARJ. Blake(S. Gostisbehere)1–1
  2. 04:37CARE. Robinson(S. Aho, A. Svechnikov)1–2
  3. 15:22CARS. Gostisbehere(J. Chatfield, W. Carrier)1–3
3rdshots 11–6
  1. 03:11DETA. Copppower play(J. Leonard, A. Sandin-Pellikka)2–3
  2. 13:09CARA. Svechnikov2–4
  3. 18:39CARJ. Martinookempty net(A. Svechnikov, S. Gostisbehere)2–5

score reads DET–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.93
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.9
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.014
CAR puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
66.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.96Expected goals6.93
CAR 70% of the chance quality
20Shots on goal38
5High-danger chances16
39All attempts (Corsi)77
Adjusted for score: DET 36% · CAR 64%
Faceoffs · CAR won56%off50%neu26%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DET1 / 5 · 1.15 xG
CAR2 / 16 · 4.30 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DET1 / 12 · 1.37 xG
CAR1 / 15 · 1.78 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DET0 / 22 · 0.44 xG
CAR2 / 46 · 0.85 xG

CAR went 2-for-16 from high danger on 4.30 expected goals — 2.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DET
2 G · 2.96 xG · -1.0
CAR
5 G · 6.93 xG · -1.9
012345678

DET finished -1.0 against expected, CAR -1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DET
WRIST1/18
SNAP0/8
TIP IN1/2
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP0/1
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/6
CAR
WRIST3/32
SNAP1/7
TIP IN0/9
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/4
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED1/2
OTHER0/18
DET
CAR
Off the rush
2 G on 22
2.35 xG
3 G on 39
4.15 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.09 xG
0 G on 6
1.21 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 1-for-18, CAR 3-for-32. 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
J. Gibson
DET · 33/37 · .892
+2.9
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/164.3+2.3
Medium1/151.8+0.8
Low2/460.8-1.1

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 · 18/20 · .900
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.1+0.1
Medium1/121.4+0.4
Low0/220.4+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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DET
33 shots
2
Final
92 shots
CAR
59 shots
5
DET attackCAR attack
DET CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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. Gostisbehere
#4 · D · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 20:03 on ice · +4
A. Svechnikov
#37 · R · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:36 on ice · +3
S. Aho
#20 · C · CAR
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 19:18 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 27
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:54 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 likes Carolina by a hair. It projects a 2.3–2.9 goal margin in a DET–CAR matchup, giving the Hurricanes 59% win probability—not dominant, but convincing enough to trust.

The Hurricanes own the underlying play. They're holding 56.0% 5v5 xG against a Red Wings team stuck at 49.0%—a seven-point gulf in shot quality. That translates to territorial control: Carolina drives 60.0% Corsi, while Detroit manages 49.0%. This isn't a mirage. When one team generates that much more controlled possession, it tends to convert into results.

The second edge is the luck factor. Carolina's PDO sits at 0.984—they've been running cold, and regression is coming. Detroit's 0.985 is similarly depressed, but because the Hurricanes generate more chances and higher-quality looks, positive regression hits them harder. That's the hidden edge the 59% incorporates.

For Detroit, Alex DeBrincat remains the engine: 17 goals, 28 assists, 0.88 xG per 60 minutes, and a 9.0% shot rate that shows what happens when a sniper gets clean looks. He's accounted for real offense, not just luck. Marco Kasper (7 goals, 0.81 xG/60) is the upside play, though his 6.1% shooting suggests he's running cold himself—watch if it normalizes. Carolina's answer is Jackson Blake, who leads this matchup in shot quality: 1.06 xG/60 across 14 goals and 19 assists, with a 10.9% conversion rate that reflects high-danger opportunities. Seth Jarvis pairs with him (17 goals, 0.98 xG/60, 11.9% shooting), running even hotter on volume.

The weak spots matter too. Axel Sandin-Pellikka is Detroit's defensive liability—Carolina will scheme to exploit that. Charles Alexis Legault plays the same role for the Hurricanes. If Detroit gets traffic in front and forces extended possession time, they could still steal this. But the model's confidence in Carolina isn't arbitrary. Hurricanes at 59% is a recommendation born of sustained control, not hot shooting.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 59%
59%
CAR
Model favorite
41%
59%
DET50CAR

CAR by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score DET 2.3–2.9 CAR; 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
DET← edge
edge →CAR
49.0%56.0%
49.0%60.0%
2.382.98
2.502.31
1.732.26
2.071.95
0.9850.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.984) says DET has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DET
8-2-0
+10 GD · 4d rest
CAR
6-3-1
+3 GD · 3d rest
0.985
DET 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.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
DET
Expected in goal
J. Gibson
4 days rest.864 last start
Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CAR
Expected in goal
F. Andersen
3 days rest.773 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 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
DET
Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
Marco Kasper7G 8A
0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% 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