Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Fri, Jan 16 · the slate
Breakdown · FLA at CAR

Hurricanes run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalFri, Jan 16
FLAFlorida Panthers1CARCarolina Hurricanes9
The verdict · earned

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

FLA 1 · CAR 9
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:03 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

Carolina's 9-1 victory was built on overwhelming dominance, then exceeded even that dominance. The Hurricanes controlled 71% of expected goals at 5v5 (5.34–2.17)—a margin that would suggest a three-goal victory. Instead, they scored nine, overperforming their xG by 3.66 goals. S. Bobrovsky faced 36 shots and made 27, a 0.750 save percentage that masked a deeper problem: he allowed 3.7 more goals than expected.

The shot attempt split confirmed Carolina's control: 69% for the Hurricanes (36–16 on goal). High-danger chances ran 11–4 in the Hurricanes' favor. Carolina's offense generated superior danger—0.081 expected goals per shot versus Florida's 0.062—turning quantity into precision.

Execution determined the rout. Carolina converted 6 of 11 high-danger chances (55%). On the rush, they scored 6 goals on 33 chances. The power play was surgical: 4 goals on 8 shots (1.57 xG).

B. Bussi's performance on the other end was sterling. He saved 15 of 16 shots, outperforming expectation by 1.2 goals.

The 9-1 scoreline wasn't merely the inevitable consequence of Carolina's underlying advantage—it exceeded what the metrics would predict. The Hurricanes didn't just play better; they finished better.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 16
FLA
1
CAR
9

Hurricanes run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.2 – 5.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
2.17
CAR
5.34
29% of the chances71%

The board read FLA 1, CAR 9. The chances read FLA 2.2, CAR 5.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+3.7
goals above expected
CAR5.34 expected · 9 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA2.17 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes scored 3.7 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 18:35CARN. Ehlers0–1
  2. P2 01:19FLAU. Balinskis1–1
  3. P2 13:10CARM. Jankowski1–2
  4. P2 16:28CARA. NikishinPP1–3
  5. P3 04:08CARA. SvechnikovPP1–4
  6. P3 11:17CARN. EhlersPP1–5
  7. P3 11:38CART. HallPP1–6
+3 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
27 shots
1
Final
78 shots
CAR
51 shots
9
FLA attackCAR attack
FLA CAR Goal
27
shots · 1 in
51
shots · 9 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLACAR
0 / 4
0.98 xG
High danger
6 / 11
2.52 xG
0 / 7
0.78 xG
Medium
3 / 18
2.17 xG
1 / 24
0.41 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.65 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
B. Bussi
+1.2
CAR · 15/16
F
S. Bobrovsky
−3.7
FLA · 27/36
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 3–12
  1. 18:35CARN. Ehlers(J. Staal, J. Martinook)0–1
2ndshots 5–11
  1. 01:19FLAU. Balinskis(M. Samoskevich, S. Vilmanis)1–1
  2. 13:10CARM. Jankowski(A. Nikishin, M. Reilly)1–2
  3. 16:28CARA. Nikishinpower play(S. Aho, N. Ehlers)1–3
3rdshots 8–13
  1. 04:08CARA. Svechnikovpower play(S. Jarvis, S. Aho)1–4
  2. 11:17CARN. Ehlerspower play(S. Jarvis, A. Svechnikov)1–5
  3. 11:38CART. Hallpower play(L. Stankoven, M. Jankowski)1–6
  4. 13:03CARN. Ehlers(L. Stankoven, J. Blake)1–7
  5. 18:23CART. Hall(J. Blake)1–8
  6. 18:35CARE. Robinson(J. Kotkaniemi, M. Jankowski)1–9

score reads FLA–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.34
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.108
CAR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
65.3%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.17Expected goals5.34
CAR 71% of the chance quality
16Shots on goal36
4High-danger chances11
35All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: FLA 38% · CAR 62%
Faceoffs · CAR won67%off65%neu65%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA0 / 4 · 0.98 xG
CAR6 / 11 · 2.52 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA0 / 7 · 0.78 xG
CAR3 / 18 · 2.17 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA1 / 24 · 0.41 xG
CAR0 / 37 · 0.65 xG

CAR went 6-for-11 from high danger on 2.52 expected goals — 3.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
1 G · 2.17 xG · -1.2
CAR
9 G · 5.34 xG · +3.7
012345678910

FLA finished -1.2 against expected, CAR +3.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
SNAP0/8
TIP IN0/6
SLAP1/3
WRIST0/9
BACKHAND0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/8
CAR
SNAP6/28
TIP IN0/8
SLAP2/9
WRIST0/2
BACKHAND1/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/15
FLA
CAR
Off the rush
1 G on 17
1.70 xG
6 G on 33
4.10 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.15 xG
1 G on 5
0.65 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-8, CAR 6-for-28. CAR scored 6 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. Bobrovsky
FLA · 27/36 · .750
-3.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger6/112.5-3.5
Medium3/182.2-0.8
Low0/370.7+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

B. Bussi
CAR · 15/16 · .938
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium0/70.8+0.8
Low1/240.4-0.6

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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
27 shots
1
Final
78 shots
CAR
51 shots
9
FLA attackCAR attack
FLA CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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. Ehlers
#27 · L · CAR
3 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 14:14 on ice · +2
M. Jankowski
#77 · L · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 12:33 on ice · +2
S. Aho
#20 · C · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:40 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Jan 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:01 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 projects a FLA 2.4 - 2.9 CAR game with the Hurricanes at 58% win probability. This is a verdict on play quality, not volatility.

Carolina dominates the underlying metrics. The Hurricanes operate at 56.0% 5v5 expected goals versus Florida's 49.0%, meaning they generate substantially higher-quality chances per game. At the territorial level, they control 60.0% Corsi against the Panthers' 52.0%, a gap that compounds through time. When a team owns both shot volume and shot quality, it owns the game's momentum.

The model's lean carries a PDO regression angle. Carolina's 0.984 PDO sits below Florida's 0.989, indicating both the Hurricanes and their goaltender are underperforming relative to the actual play happening. PDO regresses by definition — it is noise, not signal. Carolina's current fortune improves toward their underlying quality once this variance flips.

For Florida, offensive creation concentrates among established finishers. Sam Bennett generates 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes with 18 goals and 19 assists on 13.1% shooting — high volume balanced by solid efficiency. Brad Marchand operates at 0.93 xG per 60 but at 19.5% shooting, making him the Panthers' most dangerous individual scorer on a marginal basis.

Carolina's scoring distributes across the roster. Jackson Blake leads at 1.06 xG per 60 — the matchup's highest rate — with 14 goals and 19 assists despite 10.9% conversion. Seth Jarvis complements him at 0.98 xG per 60 with steadier 11.9% shooting, posting 17 goals and 12 assists. Blake generates volume; Jarvis delivers consistency.

The Hurricanes' advantage is structural: they are building more and better chances nightly. Regression only amplifies this. Florida's defensive priority is containing Blake's 1.06-xG generation while monitoring Jarvis for shooting correction. Carolina's task amounts to sustaining what it already does — its play quality is already sufficient.

The model sees the Hurricanes as the better team in quality of play, and PDO regression will confirm it in the standings.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 59%
59%
CAR
Model favorite
41%
59%
FLA50CAR

CAR by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score FLA 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
FLA← edge
edge →CAR
49.0%56.0%
52.0%60.0%
2.482.98
2.562.31
1.982.26
2.211.95
0.9890.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.984) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
FLA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
CAR
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.989
FLA 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 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.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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