Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Thu, Jan 8 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at CAR

Hurricanes pull away from the Ducks

FinalThu, Jan 8
ANAAnaheim Ducks2CARCarolina Hurricanes5
The verdict · earned

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

ANA 2 · CAR 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:50 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

Anaheim generated the better chances but couldn't convert. Carolina won 5-2, yet the Ducks underperformed their expected goals by 1.26—they had higher-quality looks (0.088 xG/shot vs 0.060) and still lost decisively.

F. Andersen's goaltending was the difference. He made 11 saves on 13 shots (0.846 SV%) but stopped 1.3 goals above expected. Against a team that exploited transition opportunities, that discipline was decisive. V. Husso (Anaheim) made 30 saves on 34 shots (0.882 SV%), but his team's defensive structure on the rush gave Carolina what it needed: five goals on 30 rush chances.

The Hurricanes dominated possession, holding 73% of shot attempts (35–13 on goal) and 57% of expected goals (4.39–3.26). But volume wasn't the story—execution was. Carolina converted three of seven high-danger chances (43%), a clinical rate. Anaheim crashed the net with seven rebound opportunities, converting none. Carolina generated six rebound chances, also converting none, yet still pulled away.

Taylor Hall's snap shot from the high slot exemplified the night's tension: Carolina finished what it created; Anaheim could not.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 8
ANA
2
CAR
5

Hurricanes pull away from the Ducks

Chances 3.3 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.26
CAR
4.39
43% of the chances57%

The board read ANA 2, CAR 5. The chances read ANA 3.3, CAR 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+0.6
goals above expected
CAR4.39 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.26 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 13:18ANAR. Poehling1–0
  2. P2 08:56CARM. Jankowski1–1
  3. P2 12:04ANAM. Granlund2–1
  4. P2 14:05CARL. Stankoven2–2
  5. P2 16:08CARJ. Chatfield2–3
  6. P3 10:39CARJ. Blake2–4
  7. P3 17:11CART. HallEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
29 shots
2
Final
82 shots
CAR
53 shots
5
ANA attackCAR attack
ANA CAR Goal
29
shots · 2 in
53
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANACAR
2 / 6
1.48 xG
High danger
3 / 7
2.15 xG
0 / 13
1.47 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.31 xG
0 / 18
0.32 xG
Low
1 / 54
0.93 xG

The Hurricanes buried 3 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
F. Andersen
+1.3
CAR · 11/13
B
V. Husso
+0.4
ANA · 30/34
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes pull away from the Ducks

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 6–7
  1. 13:18ANAR. Poehling(J. LaCombe, C. Kreider)1–0
2ndshots 3–19
  1. 08:56CARM. Jankowski(E. Robinson)1–1
  2. 12:04ANAM. Granlund(M. McTavish, B. Sennecke)2–1
  3. 14:05CARL. Stankoven(T. Hall, J. Chatfield)2–2
  4. 16:08CARJ. Chatfield(J. Staal, S. Gostisbehere)2–3
3rdshots 4–9
  1. 10:39CARJ. Blake(A. Nikishin, L. Stankoven)2–4
  2. 17:11CART. Hallempty net(S. Walker, K. Miller)2–5

score reads ANA–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.39
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.6
Finishing
Goals above 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

3.26Expected goals4.39
CAR 57% of the chance quality
13Shots on goal35
6High-danger chances7
37All attempts (Corsi)73
Adjusted for score: ANA 34% · CAR 66%
Faceoffs · CAR won77%off71%neu39%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA2 / 6 · 1.48 xG
CAR3 / 7 · 2.15 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA0 / 13 · 1.47 xG
CAR1 / 12 · 1.31 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 18 · 0.32 xG
CAR1 / 54 · 0.93 xG

ANA went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.47 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
2 G · 3.26 xG · -1.3
CAR
5 G · 4.39 xG · +0.6
0123456

ANA finished -1.3 against expected, CAR +0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
SNAP1/13
SLAP0/5
WRIST0/5
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/8
CAR
SNAP2/36
SLAP1/6
WRIST1/4
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/3
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/20
ANA
CAR
Off the rush
1 G on 17
1.91 xG
5 G on 30
3.18 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7
0.88 xG
0 G on 6
0.63 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: ANA went 1-for-13, CAR 2-for-36. CAR 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
V. Husso
ANA · 30/34 · .882
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/72.1-0.8
Medium1/121.3+0.3
Low1/540.9-0.1

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

F. Andersen
CAR · 11/13 · .846
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/61.5-0.5
Medium0/131.5+1.5
Low0/180.3+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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
29 shots
2
Final
82 shots
CAR
53 shots
5
ANA attackCAR attack
ANA CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA 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
J. Chatfield
#5 · D · CAR
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:59 on ice · +2
L. Stankoven
#22 · C · CAR
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:27 on ice · +3
T. Hall
#71 · L · CAR
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 12:58 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 8
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:48 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

Carolina's model edge over Anaheim rests on genuine territorial dominance, but both teams are running so cold on finish that regression cuts both ways.

The model projects a 2.5-2.9 goal Hurricanes victory with 56% win probability—not a blowout, but a clear favorite. That lean begins with their 5v5 work: Carolina's 56.0% xG% means they're getting the better scoring chances at a meaningful clip. Anaheim manages just 52.0%, a gap that typically widens over time. The Corsi picture widens it further—Carolina's 60.0% to Anaheim's 52.0% reveals a team that doesn't just create better chances but controls more of the game's geography.

The complication arrives via PDO, where both teams present a paradox. Carolina sits at 0.984 and Anaheim at 0.981—both figures running cold and primed for positive regression. What this means: both teams are finishing at a depressed rate relative to their underlying play. The Hurricanes have gotten less finished product than their chances warrant, and so have the Ducks. In a league where luck regresses, that's live ammunition for the underdog.

Carolina's case runs through two creatures: Jackson Blake has generated 1.06 xG/60 with 14 goals and 19 assists, though just 2 came from high-danger areas. Seth Jarvis runs a tighter 0.98 xG/60 but carries 17 goals on an 11.9% shooting rate, suggesting he's caught some variance—the kind that doesn't always sustain.

Anaheim counters with Beckett Sennecke, the heavier load: 1.03 xG/60 producing 20 goals and 19 assists, with 8 from high-danger areas and a 13.5% shooting rate. That's legitimate efficiency. Cutter Gauthier operates slightly south of that—0.99 xG/60 for 25 goals on 12.9% shooting—but his goal total is real. The discrepancy between shot quality and output suggests both have enjoyed better luck than Carolina's pair, which tightens the PDO regression case.

The defensive weak links compound the mystery. Mason McTavish looms for Anaheim; Charles Alexis Legault for Carolina. Neither team can afford to cough up the territorial advantage they'd built if those weak points crack.

The model's verdict is sound: Carolina should win this game. But PDO regression cuts both ways, and a Ducks team that finds even partial offensive synchrony can absolutely steal one. Bet the Hurricanes, but watch for the noise.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 56%
56%
CAR
Model favorite
44%
56%
ANA50CAR

CAR by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score ANA 2.5–2.9 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
ANA← edge
edge →CAR
52.0%56.0%
52.0%60.0%
2.802.98
2.592.31
2.092.26
2.321.95
0.9810.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.984) says CAR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
ANA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
CAR
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.981
ANA 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 52.0%.
  • 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 Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • 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
ANA
Beckett Sennecke20G 19A
1.03 xG/60 · 8 HD · 13.5% sh
Cutter Gauthier25G 16A
0.99 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.9% 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

Back to the front page