Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Sat, Jan 17 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at NJD

F. Andersen stands tall as the Hurricanes edge the Devils

FinalSat, Jan 17
CARCarolina Hurricanes4NJDNew Jersey Devils1
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 4 · NJD 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:09 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

F. Andersen stole this game. The Hurricanes' goalie saved 2.72 goals above expected, transforming a competitive matchup into a convincing 4-1 victory—one where the underlying numbers suggest the result was tighter than it looked.

High-danger chances were perfectly balanced at 9-9. The Devils couldn't convert their share (0/9), while Carolina converted rush opportunities efficiently (4 goals on 31 rush attempts). Andersen stopped all 9 high-danger shots, posting a 0.967 save percentage; J. Markstrom finished at 0.886.

The Hurricanes controlled expected goals 4.83–3.72 (56–44%), though shot attempts stayed relatively even (35–30 on goal). Where the game tilted decisively: Andersen's execution and New Jersey's misfire when given prime looks.

A. Svechnikov posted 3 goals in 14:53. S. Aho added 3 assists over 19:17. K. Miller logged 24:11, anchoring the blue line.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 17
CAR
4
NJD
1

F. Andersen stands tall as the Hurricanes edge the Devils

Chances 4.8 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
4.83
NJD
3.72
56% of the chances44%

The board read CAR 4, NJD 1. The chances read CAR 4.8, NJD 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−0.8
goals above expected
CAR4.83 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD3.72 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Devils left 2.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 13:12CARA. Svechnikov1–0
  2. P2 14:09CARA. Svechnikov2–0
  3. P3 04:27NJDT. MeierPP2–1
  4. P3 08:33CARJ. BlakePP3–1
  5. P3 15:52CARA. Svechnikov4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
52 shots
4
Final
93 shots
NJD
41 shots
1
CAR attackNJD attack
CAR NJD Goal
52
shots · 4 in
41
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARNJD
0 / 9
1.89 xG
High danger
0 / 9
1.99 xG
4 / 20
2.35 xG
Medium
0 / 12
1.18 xG
0 / 39
0.59 xG
Low
1 / 32
0.55 xG

The Devils went 0 for 9 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
F. Andersen
+2.7
CAR · 29/30
B+
J. Markstrom
+0.8
NJD · 31/35
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

F. Andersen stands tall as the Hurricanes edge the Devils

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 4–10no goals
    2ndshots 16–11
    1. 13:12CARA. Svechnikov(S. Aho)1–0
    2. 14:09CARA. Svechnikov(S. Aho, S. Walker)2–0
    3rdshots 15–9
    1. 04:27NJDT. Meierpower play(C. Glass, D. Hamilton)2–1
    2. 08:33CARJ. Blakepower play(N. Ehlers, K. Miller)3–1
    3. 15:52CARA. Svechnikov(S. Aho, S. Jarvis)4–1

    score reads CAR–NJD

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.83
    CAR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.040
    CAR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    56.2%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.83Expected goals3.72
    CAR 56% of the chance quality
    35Shots on goal30
    9High-danger chances9
    68All attempts (Corsi)53
    Adjusted for score: CAR 52% · NJD 48%
    Faceoffs · NJD won52%off50%neu64%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CAR0 / 9 · 1.89 xG
    NJD0 / 9 · 1.99 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CAR4 / 20 · 2.35 xG
    NJD0 / 12 · 1.18 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CAR0 / 39 · 0.59 xG
    NJD1 / 32 · 0.55 xG

    NJD went 0-for-9 from high danger on 1.99 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CAR
    4 G · 4.83 xG · -0.8
    NJD
    1 G · 3.72 xG · -2.7
    0123456

    CAR finished -0.8 against expected, NJD -2.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CAR
    WRIST0/17
    SNAP3/15
    BACKHAND1/6
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN0/3
    DEFLECTED0/2
    CRADLE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    BAT0/1
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/16
    NJD
    WRIST1/23
    SNAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/5
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN0/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    CRADLE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BAT0/0
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/12
    CAR
    NJD
    Off the rush
    4 G on 31
    2.83 xG
    1 G on 32
    3.19 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 12
    1.68 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.45 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 0-for-17, NJD 1-for-23. CAR scored 4 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 · 29/30 · .967
    +2.7
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/92.0+2.0
    Medium0/121.2+1.2
    Low1/320.6-0.5

    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. Markstrom
    NJD · 31/35 · .886
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/91.9+1.9
    Medium4/202.4-1.6
    Low0/390.6+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

    93 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CAR
    52 shots
    4
    Final
    93 shots
    NJD
    41 shots
    1
    CAR attackNJD attack
    CAR NJD Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, NJD 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
    0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 19:17 on ice · +3
    A. Svechnikov
    #37 · R · CAR
    3 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 14:53 on ice · +3
    K. Miller
    #19 · D · CAR
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:11 on ice · +3
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Jan 17
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:08 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 gives Carolina a 54% edge in win probability, projecting a 2.7–2.5 final score. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Carolina owns the play at 5v5: they're carrying 56.0% expected goals and 60.0% Corsi, meaning they'll spend the night in New Jersey's zone. The Devils, at 50.0% xG%, are getting pinned back.

    Both teams are due for PDO regression. Carolina's sits at 0.984, the Devils at 0.971—both are running cold by definition, which means puck luck should move toward average in the near term. Carolina has slightly less distance to travel.

    The Hurricanes' scoring depth leans on Jackson Blake and Seth Jarvis. Blake is generating 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 19 assists, shooting at 10.9% with two high-danger goals. Jarvis has logged 0.98 xG/60, 17 goals and 12 assists, shooting at 11.9% with one high-danger goal. This pairing can create offense faster than the Devils can respond.

    New Jersey counters with Timo Meier and Jack Hughes. Meier's 1.08 xG/60 leads the matchup; he's added 13 goals and 15 assists with three high-danger goals, though his 6.7% shooting suggests some underperformance. Hughes has posted 0.88 xG/60 while collecting 18 goals and 17 assists, shooting at 11.5% with one high-danger goal—elite shot discipline but less volume than Jarvis or Blake.

    Defensively, Carolina's Charles Alexis Legault represents a structural weakness. For New Jersey, Johnathan Kovacevic is the liability. Both forward groups will hunt these matchups.

    The underlying metrics favor Carolina. New Jersey's path requires dominating shot quality or theft—plausible, but uphill.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CAR 54%
    54%
    CAR
    Model favorite
    54%
    46%
    CAR50NJD

    CAR by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.7–2.5 NJD; 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 →NJD
    56.0%50.0%
    60.0%51.0%
    2.982.45
    2.312.50
    2.261.66
    1.952.23
    0.9840.971

    CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 0.971) says CAR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    CAR
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    NJD
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.984
    CAR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.971
    NJD 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 50.0%.
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • 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 50.0%.
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    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
    NJD
    Timo Meier13G 15A
    1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
    Jack Hughes18G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page