Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
Breakdown · CAR at OTT

B. Bussi stands tall as the Hurricanes edge the Senators

The verdict · stolen

The Hurricanes stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.75–3.56 and won anyway.

CAR 4 · OTT 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:24 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

The Hurricanes stole this. Despite surrendering 56% of expected goals at 5v5 and watching the Senators control 66% of shot attempts, Carolina won 4–1 — a result that would be inexplicable without B. Bussi's exceptional evening.

This was a goaltending story. B. Bussi stopped 36 of 37 shots at 0.973 SV%, saving 2.56 goals above expected. J. Reimer saved 15 of 19 at 0.789 SV%, allowing 1.25 goals more than expected. The gap between these two goalies was the margin of victory.

The Senators had the chances but couldn't finish. Ottawa generated 3.56 expected goals — 56% of the 5v5 total — while controlling 66% of shot attempts (37–19). High-danger chances were tied 3–3. Yet the Senators scored just once, underperforming their xG by 2.56 goals.

Carolina's efficiency was surgical. The Hurricanes scored three goals from low-danger spots — chances opposing goalies need to stop — and were lethal on the rush, scoring four times in 17 attempts. When you're outshot and outexpected but still win decisively, it's because you're converting what matters and your goalie is standing on his head.

Bussi made every crucial save. Reimer faced 37 shots and couldn't reward his team's possession. The Senators' inability to convert, paired with Bussi's excellence, turned a winnable game into a rout.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 24
CAR
4
OTT
1

B. Bussi stands tall as the Hurricanes edge the Senators

Chances 2.8 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
2.75
OTT
3.56
44% of the chances56%

The board read CAR 4, OTT 1. The chances read CAR 2.8, OTT 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+1.3
goals above expected
CAR2.75 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.56 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators left 2.6 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 03:53CARW. Carrier1–0
  2. P1 05:36CARS. Jarvis2–0
  3. P1 18:43CART. Hall3–0
  4. P2 09:29CARA. SvechnikovPP4–0
  5. P2 12:11OTTT. Stützle4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
29 shots
4
Final
76 shots
OTT
47 shots
1
CAR attackOTT attack
CAR OTT Goal
29
shots · 4 in
47
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CAROTT
0 / 3
1.11 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.81 xG
1 / 12
1.27 xG
Medium
1 / 21
2.25 xG
3 / 28
0.38 xG
Low
0 / 38
0.50 xG

The Senators went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
B. Bussi
+2.6
CAR · 36/37
D-
J. Reimer
−1.3
OTT · 15/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

B. Bussi stands tall as the Hurricanes edge the Senators

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 8–14
  1. 03:53CARW. Carrier(M. Jankowski, J. Chatfield)1–0
  2. 05:36CARS. Jarvis(A. Nikishin)2–0
  3. 18:43CART. Hall(J. Blake, J. Chatfield)3–0
2ndshots 8–7
  1. 09:29CARA. Svechnikovpower play(N. Ehlers, S. Jarvis)4–0
  2. 12:11OTTT. Stützle(J. Sanderson, C. Giroux)4–1
3rdshots 3–16no goals

    score reads CAR–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.75
    CAR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.077
    CAR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    41.0%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.75Expected goals3.56
    OTT 56% of the chance quality
    19Shots on goal37
    3High-danger chances3
    43All attempts (Corsi)62
    Adjusted for score: CAR 34% · OTT 66%
    Faceoffs · OTT won79%off73%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CAR0 / 3 · 1.11 xG
    OTT0 / 3 · 0.81 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CAR1 / 12 · 1.27 xG
    OTT1 / 21 · 2.25 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CAR3 / 28 · 0.38 xG
    OTT0 / 38 · 0.50 xG

    CAR went 3-for-28 from low danger on 0.38 expected goals — 2.6 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CAR
    4 G · 2.75 xG · +1.3
    OTT
    1 G · 3.56 xG · -2.6
    012345

    CAR finished +1.3 against expected, OTT -2.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CAR
    WRIST3/19
    BACKHAND1/2
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN0/4
    SNAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/14
    OTT
    WRIST1/30
    BACKHAND0/7
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN0/2
    SNAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/15
    CAR
    OTT
    Off the rush
    4 G on 17
    1.29 xG
    1 G on 31
    2.65 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.29 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.46 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 3-for-19, OTT 1-for-30. 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
    B. Bussi
    CAR · 36/37 · .973
    +2.6
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.8+0.8
    Medium1/212.3+1.3
    Low0/380.5+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. Reimer
    OTT · 15/19 · .789
    -1.3
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/31.1+1.1
    Medium1/121.3+0.3
    Low3/280.4-2.6

    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

    76 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CAR
    29 shots
    4
    Final
    76 shots
    OTT
    47 shots
    1
    CAR attackOTT attack
    CAR OTT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, OTT 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
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 24:20 on ice · +1
    S. Jarvis
    #24 · R · CAR
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:42 on ice · +1
    J. Sanderson
    #85 · D · OTT
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 23:55 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Jan 24
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:23 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 2.5-2.6 goal game with Ottawa holding 51% win probability. This is neutral territory.

    Carolina looks better by the recent form measure. The Hurricanes are 7-1-2 over ten games while Ottawa sits at -7 goal differential in the same span—an edge in momentum that's meaningful but not decisive. Season-long 5v5 play muddies that advantage. Both teams are at 56.0% expected goals share, meaning shot quality splits even across sixty minutes. Carolina's territorial control shows in Corsi at 60.0% against Ottawa's 53.0%, but possession hasn't yet forced the offensive burden the Hurricanes might want.

    The variance lives in two places. Carolina's PDO of 0.984 means the team is running cold on both goaltending and shooting percentage—the kind of number that regresses upward. Ottawa's 0.993 is closer to sustainable long-term average. On the other end, both teams have generated 0% hard-chance goals and 0% rebound goals, leaning entirely on primary scoring and opponent lapses.

    Goaltending adds a layer of fatigue: both J. Reimer and F. Andersen are on back-to-backs, which leaves starter status uncertain and edge detection harder.

    Defensively, Charles Alexis Legault is Carolina's weak link. Nick Jensen plays that role for Ottawa. Close systems expose those vulnerabilities first.

    The model calls this even because structurally it is. One team finds an edge the numbers can't predict—and at 51%, that edge belongs to whichever team wins.

    Players to Watch

    Carolina

    Jackson Blake (1.06 xG/60, 14G, 19A, 2 HD goals, 10.9%)

    Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17G, 12A, 1 HD goal, 11.9%)

    Ottawa

    Brady Tkachuk (1.19 xG/60, 11G, 20A, 2 HD goals, 7.5%)

    Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60, 13G, 15A, 1 HD goal, 9.5%)

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 51%
    51%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    CAR50OTT

    OTT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CAR 2.5–2.6 OTT; 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 →OTT
    56.0%56.0%
    60.0%53.0%
    2.982.66
    2.312.12
    2.262.18
    1.951.99
    0.9840.993

    CAR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CAR
    7-1-2
    +16 GD · 1d rest
    OTT
    3-5-2
    -7 GD · 1d rest
    0.984
    CAR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • 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 drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • J. Reimer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • F. Andersen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Hurricanes are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
    • The Senators are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
    • 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
    F. Andersen
    back-to-back.864 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.

    OTT
    Expected in goal
    J. Reimer
    back-to-back.846 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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.

    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
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next