Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
← Thu, Jan 1 · the slate
Breakdown · MTL at CAR

Canadiens hold off the Hurricanes

FinalThu, Jan 1
MTLMontreal Canadiens7CARCarolina Hurricanes5
The verdict · earned

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

MTL 7 · CAR 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:44 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 held 52% of shot attempts and 7 high-danger chances to Montreal's 6, yet lost 7-5. That gap—dominance in volume, defeat on the scoreboard—defines this game. Montreal's shots were more dangerous (0.084 xG per attempt versus Carolina's 0.061), which transformed shot quantity into scoreboard advantage.

Montreal converted ruthlessly in the high-danger zone, beating Carolina's goaltender on 3 of 6 chances (50%). Carolina, despite its volume, could not match that efficiency. Montreal also scored twice from low-danger situations—mistakes goaltenders cannot afford.

Lane Hutson's wrist shot from a sharp angle (P3, 18:00) was the game's turning point.

In net, J. Dobes (MTL) made 20 of 25 saves at 0.800 SV%, underperforming his expected line by 1.73 goals—a reflection of Montreal's pressure. B. Bussi (CAR) recorded 16 of 22 saves at 0.727 SV%, underperforming by 2.22.

Off the rush, both teams capitalized: Montreal scored 5 times on 26 chances; Carolina, 3 times on 24. Montreal outperformed its expected goals (3.78) by 3.22; Carolina exceeded its (3.27) by 1.73. Both teams got lucky, but only one leveraged it into a blowout.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 1
MTL
7
CAR
5

Canadiens hold off the Hurricanes

Chances 3.8 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
3.78
CAR
3.27
54% of the chances46%

The board read MTL 7, CAR 5. The chances read MTL 3.8, CAR 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
+3.2
goals above expected
MTL3.78 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR3.27 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canadiens scored 3.2 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 03:10MTLN. Suzuki1–0
  2. P1 04:06MTLO. Kapanen2–0
  3. P1 10:47CARN. EhlersPP2–1
  4. P1 12:19CARS. Aho2–2
  5. P1 14:51CARA. Svechnikov2–3
  6. P2 00:54CARA. NikishinPP2–4
  7. P2 05:01MTLS. Blais3–4
+5 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
35 shots
7
Final
73 shots
CAR
38 shots
5
MTL attackCAR attack
MTL CAR Goal
35
shots · 7 in
38
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLCAR
3 / 6
1.62 xG
High danger
2 / 7
1.53 xG
2 / 17
1.75 xG
Medium
2 / 14
1.30 xG
2 / 22
0.41 xG
Low
1 / 33
0.44 xG

The Canadiens buried 3 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
F
J. Dobes
−1.7
MTL · 20/25
F
B. Bussi
−2.2
CAR · 16/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens hold off 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 5–10
  1. 03:10MTLN. Suzuki(A. Texier, S. Blais)1–0
  2. 04:06MTLO. Kapanen(I. Demidov, J. Slafkovský)2–0
  3. 10:47CARN. Ehlerspower play(A. Nikishin, S. Aho)2–1
  4. 12:19CARS. Aho(J. Nystrom, A. Svechnikov)2–2
  5. 14:51CARA. Svechnikov(S. Aho, N. Ehlers)2–3
2ndshots 11–8
  1. 00:54CARA. Nikishinpower play(S. Aho, A. Svechnikov)2–4
  2. 05:01MTLS. Blais(L. Hutson, B. Gallagher)3–4
  3. 16:23MTLC. Caufield(A. Texier)4–4
  4. 16:46MTLJ. Anderson5–4
3rdshots 7–7
  1. 11:20MTLJ. Slafkovský(J. Struble, I. Demidov)6–4
  2. 16:58CARS. Ahopower play(N. Ehlers, K. Miller)6–5
  3. 18:00MTLL. Hutsonempty net7–5

score reads MTL–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.78
MTL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.063
MTL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.5%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.78Expected goals3.27
MTL 54% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal25
6High-danger chances7
45All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: MTL 44% · CAR 56%
Faceoffs · CAR won50%off68%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL3 / 6 · 1.62 xG
CAR2 / 7 · 1.53 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL2 / 17 · 1.75 xG
CAR2 / 14 · 1.30 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL2 / 22 · 0.41 xG
CAR1 / 33 · 0.44 xG

MTL went 2-for-22 from low danger on 0.41 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
7 G · 3.78 xG · +3.2
CAR
5 G · 3.27 xG · +1.7
012345678

MTL finished +3.2 against expected, CAR +1.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
SNAP4/10
WRIST3/14
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/1
OTHER0/10
CAR
SNAP3/24
WRIST0/6
TIP IN1/1
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP1/4
OTHER0/16
MTL
CAR
Off the rush
5 G on 26
2.55 xG
3 G on 24
2.41 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.21 xG
0 G on 3
0.41 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: MTL went 4-for-10, CAR 3-for-24. MTL scored 5 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. Dobes
MTL · 20/25 · .800
-1.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.5-0.5
Medium2/141.3-0.7
Low1/330.4-0.6

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

B. Bussi
CAR · 16/22 · .727
-2.2
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/61.6-1.4
Medium2/171.8-0.3
Low2/220.4-1.6

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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
35 shots
7
Final
73 shots
CAR
38 shots
5
MTL attackCAR attack
MTL CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL 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. Aho
#20 · C · CAR
2 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 16:50 on ice · +1
A. Svechnikov
#37 · R · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 17:14 on ice · +1
N. Ehlers
#27 · L · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:54 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 1
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:43 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 at 60% win probability in a projected 2.4 - 2.9 score.

The advantage is purely structural. The Hurricanes own 56.0% xG against Montreal's 48.0%, and they drive 60.0% Corsi — the Canadiens will spend the game defending their zone. This matchup is a territorial blowout in Carolina's favor.

But the score projection demands scrutiny on variance. Montreal's PDO is 1.018, an unsustainable run of luck now likely to reverse. Carolina's sits at 0.984, a drought. The Hurricanes are due for positive regression; the Canadiens are vulnerable to the opposite.

Cole Caufield anchors Montreal's offense with 33 goals and 16 assists. His 0.97 xG/60 combined with 20.0% shooting suggests he is riding elevated variance — his shot is going in above his underlying creation. Oliver Kapanen (19G, 12A) operates at 0.83 xG/60 but shoots 17.8%, another player banking on luck.

Carolina's Jackson Blake generates 1.06 xG/60, the highest rate in this matchup — he has 14 goals and 19 assists. Seth Jarvis (17G, 12A) produces 0.98 xG/60 and shoots 11.9%, a rate closer to his chances. Neither Hurricane is riding unsustainable variance, which tilts the regression narrative further in Carolina's direction.

The model sees through the PDO gap and still prefers the Hurricanes. That confidence reflects volume over luck — Carolina will own the play frequently enough that Montreal's positive variance doesn't matter.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 60%
60%
CAR
Model favorite
40%
60%
MTL50CAR

CAR by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score MTL 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
MTL← edge
edge →CAR
48.0%56.0%
49.0%60.0%
2.412.98
2.622.31
2.242.26
1.961.95
1.0180.984

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
MTL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
CAR
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.018
MTL 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.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some 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.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% 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