Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
← Mon, Jan 12 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at DET

Red Wings edge the Hurricanes in overtime

Final / OTMon, Jan 12
CARCarolina Hurricanes3DETDetroit Red Wings4
The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.47–3.41 and won anyway.

CAR 3 · DET 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:26 AMxG: 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

Detroit won 4-3 in a game where Carolina had no business losing: the Hurricanes controlled 57% of expected goals, yet fell short. This was a robbery.

The Hurricanes generated excellent chances—4.47 xG to Detroit's 3.41, 34 shots to 18—but went 0-for-7 on high-danger looks. Detroit was clinical: A. DeBrincat (1G, 2A in 17:12) and A. Copp (1G, 1A in 18:18) finished Detroit's limited chances. The Hurricanes, meanwhile, couldn't finish theirs.

J. Gibson was the difference. Detroit's goaltender stopped 31 of 34 shots (0.912 SV%) and turned in a 100% save rate on seven high-danger chances—1.47 goals above expected. F. Andersen, meanwhile, underperformed his xG by 0.59, giving up soft looks Detroit capitalized on.

Detroit's quality was hidden by the volume: they generated only 18 shots but at a rate of 0.087 xG per attempt. Carolina, with 34 shots, averaged 0.054 xG per shot. The Red Wings didn't need volume. They were lethal on the rush (3 goals on 16 chances); Carolina, despite more rush attempts, converted only 3 on 36. Detroit crashed the net for four rebound opportunities and converted once. Carolina created seven rebounds and zero goals.

Carolina's power play was the one dominant force—2 goals on 14 shots, 1.28 xG—yet it wasn't enough. A. Copp's snap shot from the doorstep at 3:27 of overtime buried the Hurricanes, and their superior underlying game had become irrelevant.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 12
CAR
3
DET
4

Red Wings edge the Hurricanes in overtime

Chances 4.5 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
4.47
DET
3.41
57% of the chances43%

The board read CAR 3, DET 4. The chances read CAR 4.5, DET 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+0.6
goals above expected
DET3.41 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR4.47 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 01:32DETJ. van RiemsdykPP0–1
  2. P2 01:28DETA. DeBrincat0–2
  3. P2 04:54DETA. Johansson0–3
  4. P3 04:44CARJ. BlakePP1–3
  5. P3 07:56CARS. JarvisSH2–3
  6. P3 16:59CARS. GostisbeherePP3–3
  7. OT 03:27DETA. Copp3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
55 shots
3
Final
83 shots
DET
28 shots
4
CAR attackDET attack
CAR DET Goal
55
shots · 3 in
28
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARDET
0 / 7
1.50 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.66 xG
2 / 23
2.20 xG
Medium
3 / 12
1.50 xG
1 / 52
0.77 xG
Low
0 / 22
0.25 xG

The Hurricanes went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Gibson
+1.5
DET · 31/34
D
F. Andersen
−0.6
CAR · 14/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings edge the Hurricanes in overtime

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 12–8
  1. 01:32DETJ. van Riemsdykpower play(M. Seider, L. Raymond)0–1
2ndshots 7–5
  1. 01:28DETA. DeBrincat(A. Copp, B. Chiarot)0–2
  2. 04:54DETA. Johansson(P. Kane, A. DeBrincat)0–3
3rdshots 14–4
  1. 04:44CARJ. Blakepower play(T. Hall, A. Nikishin)1–3
  2. 07:56CARS. Jarvisshorthanded(S. Aho)2–3
  3. 16:59CARS. Gostisbeherepower play(S. Aho)3–3
OTshots 1–1
  1. 03:27DETA. Copp(A. DeBrincat)3–4

score reads CAR–DET

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.41
DET chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.066
DET puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
32.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.47Expected goals3.41
CAR 57% of the chance quality
34Shots on goal18
7High-danger chances5
82All attempts (Corsi)39
Adjusted for score: CAR 72% · DET 28%
Faceoffs · DET won19%off35%neu63%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR0 / 7 · 1.50 xG
DET1 / 5 · 1.66 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR2 / 23 · 2.20 xG
DET3 / 12 · 1.50 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR1 / 52 · 0.77 xG
DET0 / 22 · 0.25 xG

CAR went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.50 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
3 G · 4.47 xG · -1.5
DET
4 G · 3.41 xG · +0.6
012345

CAR finished -1.5 against expected, DET +0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
WRIST2/16
SNAP0/12
SLAP1/16
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/5
WRAP AROUND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/27
DET
WRIST0/13
SNAP3/8
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND1/3
TIP IN0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/11
CAR
DET
Off the rush
3 G on 36
2.81 xG
3 G on 16
2.11 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7
1.04 xG
1 G on 4
1.03 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 2-for-16, DET 0-for-13. 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
F. Andersen
CAR · 14/18 · .778
-0.6
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.7+0.7
Medium3/121.5-1.5
Low0/220.3+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

J. Gibson
DET · 31/34 · .912
+1.5
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.5+1.5
Medium2/232.2+0.2
Low1/520.8-0.2

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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
55 shots
3
Final
83 shots
DET
28 shots
4
CAR attackDET attack
CAR DET Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, DET 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
A. DeBrincat
#93 · R · DET
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 17:12 on ice · +2
S. Aho
#20 · C · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 21:45 on ice · -1
A. Copp
#18 · C · DET
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:18 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Jan 12
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:25 AMEdited 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 calls this a pick'em. Carolina projects a 2.7-2.5 win with 55% win probability—close enough that the game could credibly go either way.

Carolina dominates the underlying metrics. The Hurricanes carry 56.0% 5v5 expected-goals percentage versus Detroit's 49.0%, and they drive possession at 60.0% Corsi. This is territorial control.

Both teams are running cold on PDO. Carolina sits at 0.984, Detroit at 0.985—nearly identical suppression. When both teams are regressing toward the mean from similar positions, goaltending becomes the tiebreaker. J. Gibson faces a back-to-back; B. Bussi does too. Watch for either a backup appearance or a tired starter to tip the balance.

Jackson Blake is Carolina's offensive center. He operates at 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 19 assists, including 2 high-danger chances. His 10.9% shooting suggests he's stabilized. Seth Jarvis trails at 0.98 xG/60 with 17 goals and 12 assists, but his 11.9% shooting implies upside variance.

Detroit answers with Alex DeBrincat. He's at 0.88 xG/60 with 17 goals and 28 assists—an assist-driven producer—and 2 high-danger chances on just 9.0% shooting, indicating he's underperforming his opportunities. Marco Kasper posts 0.81 xG/60, 7 goals, 8 assists, and 1 high-danger chance on limited 6.1% shooting, a classic low-volume volatility play.

Both teams show 0% high-danger conversion and 0% rebound-goal rates, likely statistical noise on limited samples. Carolina's defensive vulnerability is Charles Alexis Legault; Detroit's is Axel Sandin-Pellikka.

The edge belongs to Carolina by virtue of 5v5 play and volume, but 55% is a lean, not a mandate. The back-to-back goaltending situation is the wildcard that could flip this entirely.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 55%
55%
CAR
Model favorite
55%
45%
CAR50DET

CAR by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.7–2.5 DET; 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 →DET
56.0%49.0%
60.0%49.0%
2.982.38
2.312.50
2.261.73
1.952.07
0.9840.985

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CAR
6-4-0
+2 GD · 1d rest
DET
7-2-1
+7 GD · 1d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.985
DET 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.
  • J. Gibson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • B. Bussi is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CAR
Expected in goal
B. Bussi
back-to-back.833 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.

DET
Expected in goal
J. Gibson
back-to-back1.000 last start
Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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
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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page