Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
Breakdown · COL at CAR

Avalanche hold off the Hurricanes

The verdict · earned

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

COL 5 · CAR 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:53 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

Andersen stopped 1.77 goals above expected for the Hurricanes, yet they lost 5-3—evidence that Colorado's control ran deeper than the scoreline suggests. Expected goals favored the Avalanche 5.77–4.13, a margin Carolina couldn't overcome despite their goaltender's brilliance. The Hurricanes generated just 8 high-danger chances to Colorado's 10 and held only 44% of shot attempts. Volume and quality deficits compounded into a 42-58% expected-goal split—a lead that only Andersen's excellence kept from looking like a blowout.

Colorado's rush attack was the pivot. They scored 5 goals on 32 rush attempts while the Hurricanes managed 3 on 28—a two-goal swing decided by transition execution alone. The Avalanche's power play doubled down on the advantage: 2 goals on 18 shots (1.95 xG), converting at a rate that made special teams the difference-maker when 5v5 had already separated them.

Scott Wedgewood's 1.13-above-expected performance kept Colorado's efficiency intact. But the larger story was Andersen's 1.77-above-expected night in a losing effort—a reminder of how thoroughly Colorado dominated even when facing elite goaltending.

Nathan MacKinnon's slot shot (P3, 19:42) proved decisive. MacKinnon finished 1–3 in 20:04; Cale Makar added 2 assists in 24:35, Martin Necas 2 assists in 22:44.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 3
COL
5
CAR
3

Avalanche hold off the Hurricanes

Chances 5.8 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
COL
5.77
CAR
4.13
58% of the chances42%

The board read COL 5, CAR 3. The chances read COL 5.8, CAR 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
−0.8
goals above expected
COL5.77 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR4.13 expected · 3 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 18:09CARS. AhoSH0–1
  2. P2 01:47COLG. Landeskog1–1
  3. P2 04:47CARN. EhlersPP1–2
  4. P2 07:50CARA. Svechnikov1–3
  5. P3 01:09COLB. NelsonPP2–3
  6. P3 01:42COLJ. Drury3–3
  7. P3 07:30COLB. NelsonPP4–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
COL
50 shots
5
Final
95 shots
CAR
45 shots
3
COL attackCAR attack
COL CAR Goal
50
shots · 5 in
45
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
COLCAR
2 / 10
3.14 xG
High danger
1 / 8
1.92 xG
3 / 18
2.01 xG
Medium
2 / 14
1.60 xG
0 / 38
0.62 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.61 xG

The Avalanche buried 2 of 10 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
F. Andersen
+1.8
CAR · 30/34
B+
S. Wedgewood
+1.1
COL · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche 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 15–10
  1. 18:09CARS. Ahoshorthanded(E. Robinson)0–1
2ndshots 9–8
  1. 01:47COLG. Landeskog(N. MacKinnon, M. Necas)1–1
  2. 04:47CARN. Ehlerspower play(T. Hall, L. Stankoven)1–2
  3. 07:50CARA. Svechnikov(S. Aho, K. Miller)1–3
3rdshots 11–10
  1. 01:09COLB. Nelsonpower play(N. MacKinnon, C. Makar)2–3
  2. 01:42COLJ. Drury(R. Colton)3–3
  3. 07:30COLB. Nelsonpower play(N. MacKinnon, C. Makar)4–3
  4. 19:42COLN. MacKinnonempty net(M. Necas, A. Lehkonen)5–3

score reads COL–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.77
COL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.022
COL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.1%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.77Expected goals4.13
COL 58% of the chance quality
35Shots on goal28
10High-danger chances8
66All attempts (Corsi)56
Adjusted for score: COL 55% · CAR 45%
Faceoffs · CAR won40%off40%neu29%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
COL2 / 10 · 3.14 xG
CAR1 / 8 · 1.92 xG
Medium dangermid-range
COL3 / 18 · 2.01 xG
CAR2 / 14 · 1.60 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
COL0 / 38 · 0.62 xG
CAR0 / 34 · 0.61 xG

COL went 2-for-10 from high danger on 3.14 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
COL
5 G · 5.77 xG · -0.8
CAR
3 G · 4.13 xG · -1.1
01234567

COL finished -0.8 against expected, CAR -1.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
COL
SNAP2/23
WRIST0/18
BACKHAND0/1
SLAP0/2
TIP IN1/4
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND1/1
BAT0/0
OTHER1/17
CAR
SNAP1/24
WRIST0/4
BACKHAND2/8
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/11
COL
CAR
Off the rush
5 G on 32
4.13 xG
3 G on 28
2.91 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7
0.97 xG
0 G on 6
0.85 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: COL went 2-for-23, CAR 1-for-24. COL 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
S. Wedgewood
COL · 25/28 · .893
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/81.9+0.9
Medium2/141.6-0.4
Low0/340.6+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

F. Andersen
CAR · 30/34 · .882
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/103.1+1.1
Medium3/182.0-1.0
Low0/380.6+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

95 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
COL
50 shots
5
Final
95 shots
CAR
45 shots
3
COL attackCAR attack
COL CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — COL 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
N. MacKinnon
#29 · C · COL
1 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 20:04 on ice
C. Makar
#8 · D · COL
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 24:35 on ice · -1
M. Necas
#88 · C · COL
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:44 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:06 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 Colorado at 2.7–2.8 goals against Carolina, with the Hurricanes favored at 52% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as the sport produces.

Colorado enters on a 9-0-1 surge over their last ten games, but the longer tape tells a tighter story. At 5v5 over the full season, the Avalanche hold 57.0% expected goals and 57.0% Corsi. The Hurricanes track just behind at 56.0% xG but actually lead in shot attempts at 60.0% Corsi—a meaningful gap suggesting they'll control territory and dictate the rhythm of play.

The real separation is in variance, not talent. Colorado's PDO of 1.021 reveals a team running hot; their actual results exceed what their underlying chances would normally produce. Carolina's 0.984 PDO tells the opposite story: they're running cold and leaving goal-scoring opportunities unrealized. Regression typically compresses these divergences, which matters over a two-game set. The Hurricanes are due for positive variance, while the Avalanche are primed for negative regression.

Goaltending introduces another layer. B. Bussi is on back-to-back rest. Watch whether Carolina turns to a fresh backup or trusts their starter despite fatigue—it's a decision that ripples through the whole game plan.

Players to Watch

Artturi Lehkonen (1.11 xG/60, 18 goals, 22 assists, 6 high-danger goals, 14.9% shooting) carries Colorado's offensive load. At that shot rate, he can accelerate further. Ross Colton (1.10 xG/60, 7 goals, 15 assists, 4.9% shooting) is a textbook regression candidate; that conversion rate will regress upward sharply.

Jackson Blake (1.06 xG/60, 14 goals, 19 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 10.9% shooting) anchors Carolina's depth scoring. Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17 goals, 12 assists, 11.9% shooting) operates at higher volume but lower chance quality, making him the more predictable scorer.

Defensively, Nazem Kadri (Colorado) and Charles Alexis Legault (Carolina) are the weakest links on their respective rosters. The team that exposes them more effectively wins the possession battle—and likely the game itself.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 52%
52%
CAR
Model favorite
48%
52%
COL50CAR

CAR by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score COL 2.7–2.8 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
COL← edge
edge →CAR
57.0%56.0%
57.0%60.0%
3.032.98
2.302.31
2.632.26
1.561.95
1.0210.984

COL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 0.984) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
COL
9-0-1
+22 GD · 2d rest
CAR
5-4-1
-3 GD · 1d rest
1.021
COL 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 drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • 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 Avalanche are the hotter team by points pace (9-0-1 in their last 10).
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
COL
Expected in goal
M. Blackwood
2 days rest.923 last start
Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CAR
Expected in goal
B. Bussi
back-to-back.727 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.

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
COL
Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
Ross Colton7G 15A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% 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