Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
← Thu, Jan 22 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at CAR

Blackhawks edge the Hurricanes in a shootout

Final / OTThu, Jan 22
CHIChicago Blackhawks4CARCarolina Hurricanes3
The verdict · stolen

The Blackhawks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.61–4.61 and won anyway.

CHI 4 · CAR 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:05 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

Chicago stole this game. Carolina owned 56% of expected goals—4.61 to 3.61—and still lost in a shootout. The Hurricanes controlled play but couldn't convert; the Blackhawks got the result anyway.

The disparity traced to execution. Carolina held 58% of shot attempts (31 to 22) and generated 7 high-danger chances to Chicago's 7. But Chicago's looks were sharper: 0.095 xG per shot versus 0.065. Efficiency, not volume, won this one.

S. Knight, Chicago's goaltender, was the difference. He saved 1.61 goals above expected on 28 saves, working to a 0.903 save percentage when the numbers said he should concede more. F. Andersen stopped 0.61 goals above expected for Carolina but it wasn't enough; the Hurricanes' inability to convert on 3 rebounding opportunities cost them in the margins.

Oliver Moore's snap shot from the slot in the shootout ended it.

Carolina converted 3 times on 36 rush chances while Chicago converted 2 on 19. Both teams had opportunities off the rush, but the game's margin was Chicago's efficiency in other areas.

Three Stars

  • I. Mikheyev (CHI)—1G, 1A in 18:35
  • J. Slavin (CAR)—1A in 23:32
  • C. Murphy (CHI)—1G in 22:17
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Jan 22
CHI
4
CAR
3

Blackhawks edge the Hurricanes in a shootout

Chances 3.6 – 4.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
3.61
CAR
4.61
44% of the chances56%

The board read CHI 4, CAR 3. The chances read CHI 3.6, CAR 4.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
+0.4
goals above expected
CHI3.61 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR4.61 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes left 1.6 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. P1 11:12CHII. MikheyevSH1–0
  2. P1 12:50CARJ. Nystrom1–1
  3. P2 04:35CHIN. Lardis2–1
  4. P2 09:16CARJ. Staal2–2
  5. P3 13:38CHIC. Murphy3–2
  6. P3 14:20CARJ. Blake3–3
  7. SO 00:00CARA. SvechnikovPP3–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
38 shots
5
Final
97 shots
CAR
59 shots
4
CHI attackCAR attack
CHI CAR Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

38
shots · 5 in
59
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHICAR
2 / 7
2.31 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.60 xG
1 / 8
0.91 xG
Medium
2 / 22
2.23 xG
0 / 23
0.39 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.77 xG

The Blackhawks buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Knight
+1.6
CHI · 28/31
B
F. Andersen
+0.6
CAR · 19/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blackhawks edge the Hurricanes in a shootout

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 4–13
  1. 11:12CHII. Mikheyevshorthanded1–0
  2. 12:50CARJ. Nystrom(J. Kotkaniemi)1–1
2ndshots 8–12
  1. 04:35CHIN. Lardis(R. Donato, O. Moore)2–1
  2. 09:16CARJ. Staal(J. Martinook, J. Slavin)2–2
3rdshots 8–5
  1. 13:38CHIC. Murphy(T. Bertuzzi, I. Mikheyev)3–2
  2. 14:20CARJ. Blake(L. Stankoven, T. Hall)3–3
OTshots 2–1no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00CARA. Svechnikovpower play3–3
    2. 00:00CHIC. Bedardpower play3–3
    3. 00:00CHIO. Moorepower play3–3

    score reads CHI–CAR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.61
    CHI chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.4
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.037
    CHI puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    34.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.61Expected goals4.61
    CAR 56% of the chance quality
    22Shots on goal31
    7High-danger chances7
    38All attempts (Corsi)71
    Adjusted for score: CHI 35% · CAR 65%
    Faceoffs · CAR won65%off72%neu53%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI2 / 7 · 2.31 xG
    CAR1 / 7 · 1.60 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI1 / 8 · 0.91 xG
    CAR2 / 22 · 2.23 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI0 / 23 · 0.39 xG
    CAR0 / 42 · 0.77 xG

    CAR went 0-for-42 from low danger on 0.77 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    4 G · 3.61 xG · +0.4
    CAR
    3 G · 4.61 xG · -1.6
    012345

    CHI finished +0.4 against expected, CAR -1.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    SNAP1/17
    WRIST1/9
    TIP IN0/1
    BACKHAND1/3
    SLAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/6
    CAR
    SNAP2/29
    WRIST1/7
    TIP IN0/7
    BACKHAND0/4
    SLAP0/5
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/18
    CHI
    CAR
    Off the rush
    2 G on 19
    2.66 xG
    3 G on 36
    3.50 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 3
    0.77 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.28 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-17, CAR 2-for-29. 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
    S. Knight
    CHI · 28/31 · .903
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.6+0.6
    Medium2/222.2+0.2
    Low0/420.8+0.8

    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 · 19/22 · .864
    +0.6
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/72.3+0.3
    Medium1/80.9-0.1
    Low0/230.4+0.4

    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

    97 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    38 shots
    5
    Final
    97 shots
    CAR
    59 shots
    4
    CHI attackCAR attack
    CHI CAR Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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
    I. Mikheyev
    #95 · R · CHI
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:35 on ice · +2
    J. Slavin
    #74 · D · CAR
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:32 on ice · +2
    C. Murphy
    #5 · D · CHI
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 22:17 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Jan 22
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:11 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 CHI 2.2 - 3.1 CAR game with the Hurricanes at 64% win probability. Carolina controls the underlying play.

    Carolina dominates the expected goals metric: 56.0% 5v5 xG share compared to Chicago's 42.0%. That advantage extends across the possession game—the Hurricanes drive 60.0% Corsi, which tilts territorial control decisively in their direction.

    Here's the real edge: Carolina is running cold with a 0.984 PDO, well below the expected baseline. That regresses upward. Chicago sits at 0.996 PDO, which means their luck has already turned. The PDO gap favors the Hurricanes.

    Tyler Bertuzzi carries Chicago's offense: 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals and 15 assists, though his 18.0% shooting rate suggests some regression ahead. Connor Bedard backs him up at 0.82 xG/60, with 17 goals and 27 assists at 11.8% efficiency.

    Carolina counters with Jackson Blake, who drives at 1.06 xG/60—the highest rate in the matchup—with 14 goals and 19 assists on 10.9% shooting. Seth Jarvis provides secondary firepower: 0.98 xG/60, 17 goals and 12 assists at 11.9%.

    The defensive mismatch favors Carolina. Anton Frondell represents Chicago's weak link; Blake will target him. Charles Alexis Legault becomes the vulnerability for Carolina, exposed to Bertuzzi and Bedard.

    The PDO regression math favors the Hurricanes.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CAR 64%
    64%
    CAR
    Model favorite
    36%
    64%
    CHI50CAR

    CAR by 28 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.2–3.1 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
    CHI← edge
    edge →CAR
    42.0%56.0%
    46.0%60.0%
    2.172.98
    2.942.31
    1.842.26
    2.411.95
    0.9960.984

    CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 0.984) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CHI
    6-4-0
    +0 GD · 2d rest
    CAR
    7-2-1
    +15 GD · 3d rest
    0.996
    CHI 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 42.0%.
    • 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 42.0%.
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CHI
    Expected in goal
    S. Knight
    2 days rest1.000 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    CAR
    Expected in goal
    B. Bussi
    3 days rest.944 last start
    Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season

    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
    CHI
    Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
    0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
    Connor Bedard17G 27A
    0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% 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