Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
← Tue, Dec 30 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at PIT

Penguins pull away from the Hurricanes

FinalTue, Dec 30
CARCarolina Hurricanes1PITPittsburgh Penguins5
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 1 · PIT 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:25 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 Penguins beat the Hurricanes 5–1 despite matched shot attempts (28–28), a gap driven by goaltending and shot quality. S. Skinner (27/28, 0.964 SV%) stopped 1.5 goals above expected; F. Andersen (23/28, 0.821 SV%) surrendered 1.7 more than expected.

The underlying play favored Pittsburgh, but not by the scoreline's margin. Expected goals finished 3.35–2.49 (57–43%), and high-danger chances went 3–1. Yet the Penguins overperformed their xG by 1.65 goals while the Hurricanes underperformed by 1.49, amplifying a comfortable edge into a rout.

Pittsburgh's dominance came down to quality over volume: 0.055 xG per attempt versus Carolina's 0.039. The Penguins were lethal on the rush (3 goals on 28 chances) and crashed the net effectively (4 rebound opportunities, 1 converted). Carolina also created 4 rebound chances but converted none.

Mark Jankowski's wrist shot from the high slot late in the second period marked the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 30
CAR
1
PIT
5

Penguins pull away from the Hurricanes

Chances 2.5 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
2.49
PIT
3.35
43% of the chances57%

The board read CAR 1, PIT 5. The chances read CAR 2.5, PIT 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+1.6
goals above expected
PIT3.35 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR2.49 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins scored 1.6 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 03:46PITS. Crosby0–1
  2. P1 16:07PITJ. Brazeau0–2
  3. P1 17:12PITA. ManthaPP0–3
  4. P2 15:08PITT. Novak0–4
  5. P2 18:08PITA. Mantha0–5
  6. P2 18:25CARM. Jankowski1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
42 shots
1
Final
87 shots
PIT
45 shots
5
CAR attackPIT attack
CAR PIT Goal
42
shots · 1 in
45
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARPIT
0 / 1
0.24 xG
High danger
1 / 3
0.70 xG
1 / 14
1.58 xG
Medium
3 / 17
2.08 xG
0 / 49
0.66 xG
Low
1 / 41
0.57 xG

High-danger looks: CAR 0 of 1, PIT 1 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
S. Skinner
+1.5
PIT · 27/28
F
F. Andersen
−1.6
CAR · 23/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins 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 10–13
  1. 03:46PITS. Crosby(R. Rakell, B. Rust)0–1
  2. 16:07PITJ. Brazeau(B. Kulak)0–2
  3. 17:12PITA. Manthapower play(B. Rust, E. Karlsson)0–3
2ndshots 10–8
  1. 15:08PITT. Novak(P. Wotherspoon, E. Karlsson)0–4
  2. 18:08PITA. Mantha(J. Brazeau, T. Novak)0–5
  3. 18:25CARM. Jankowski(J. Nystrom, M. Reilly)1–5
3rdshots 8–7no goals

    score reads CAR–PIT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.35
    PIT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.6
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.066
    PIT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    48.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.49Expected goals3.35
    PIT 57% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal28
    1High-danger chances3
    64All attempts (Corsi)61
    Adjusted for score: CAR 57% · PIT 43%
    Faceoffs · PIT won50%off53%neu56%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CAR0 / 1 · 0.24 xG
    PIT1 / 3 · 0.70 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CAR1 / 14 · 1.58 xG
    PIT3 / 17 · 2.08 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CAR0 / 49 · 0.66 xG
    PIT1 / 41 · 0.57 xG

    PIT went 3-for-17 from medium danger on 2.08 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CAR
    1 G · 2.49 xG · -1.5
    PIT
    5 G · 3.35 xG · +1.6
    0123456

    CAR finished -1.5 against expected, PIT +1.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CAR
    WRIST1/26
    TIP IN0/7
    SLAP0/4
    SNAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/22
    PIT
    WRIST2/26
    TIP IN1/10
    SLAP0/3
    SNAP1/2
    BACKHAND1/4
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/16
    CAR
    PIT
    Off the rush
    1 G on 24
    1.51 xG
    3 G on 28
    2.45 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.64 xG
    1 G on 4
    0.62 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-26, PIT 2-for-26. PIT 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 · 23/28 · .821
    -1.6
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.7-0.3
    Medium3/172.1-0.9
    Low1/410.6-0.4

    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

    S. Skinner
    PIT · 27/28 · .964
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/10.2+0.2
    Medium1/141.6+0.6
    Low0/490.7+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

    87 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CAR
    42 shots
    1
    Final
    87 shots
    PIT
    45 shots
    5
    CAR attackPIT attack
    CAR PIT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, PIT 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
    E. Karlsson
    #65 · D · PIT
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:40 on ice · +3
    B. Rust
    #17 · R · PIT
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:04 on ice · +1
    T. Novak
    #18 · C · PIT
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 14:39 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Dec 30
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:23 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 2.8–2.6 Hurricanes win with Carolina at 53% to take it. That's about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Carolina owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Hurricanes generate 56.0% expected goals to Pittsburgh's 51.0%—a real edge in shot quality. Corsi confirms it: 60.0% for CAR versus 50.0% for PIT. This is territorial dominance, not noise.

    Yet Pittsburgh isn't a bad bet. The Penguins run hot (1.012 PDO) while Carolina sits cold (0.984), meaning the Hurricanes should regress upward. Whether that happens tonight is unclear.

    Jackson Blake carries Carolina's attack. At 1.06 xG per 60 with 14 goals and 19 assists, he's both generating chances and converting them at 10.9%. Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17 goals, 12 assists, 11.9% shooting) is the secondary punch.

    Pittsburgh leans on Rickard Rakell—1.01 xG per 60, 13 goals, 13 assists, 3 hard-chance goals. Filip Hallander (1.28 xG/60) would swing this matchup, but reports suggest he won't play tonight.

    Charles Alexis Legault is the defensive liability for Carolina. Caleb Jones is Pittsburgh's. Neither team has scored a hard-chance goal or rebound goal—a statistical aberration that'll correct, but it's a sign both defenses are staying sharp.

    Carolina's edge in possession and shot quality should prevail over a larger sample. But Pittsburgh's run and the variance built into any single game make this genuinely uncertain. Take the Hurricanes at 53%, but don't be shocked if the Penguins steal it.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CAR 53%
    53%
    CAR
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    CAR50PIT

    CAR by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.8–2.6 PIT; 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 →PIT
    56.0%51.0%
    60.0%50.0%
    2.982.66
    2.312.55
    2.262.45
    1.952.12
    0.9841.012

    CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    CAR
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    PIT
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.984
    CAR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.012
    PIT 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 51.0%.
    • 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 51.0%.
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    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
    PIT
    Filip Hallander0G 3A
    1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
    Rickard Rakell13G 13A
    1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page