Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Washington Capitals sweater
← Sat, Jan 31 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at WSH

Capitals run the Hurricanes off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTSat, Jan 31
CARCarolina Hurricanes3WSHWashington Capitals4
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 3 · WSH 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:24 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 Capitals' 4-3 overtime victory understates their dominance. They commanded 69% of 5v5 expected goals (5.79–2.55), yet still underperformed that metric by 1.79 goals—they won against an elite performance by F. Andersen (38/42, 0.905 SV%, +1.79 vs expected).

The metrics were decisive. The Capitals held 66% of shot attempts (42–22) and generated 10 high-danger chances to four. At 0.071 xG per shot, their attempts carried twice the weight of the Hurricanes' 0.046.

Andersen stole the show. His overperformance by 1.79 goals nearly explained the entire margin of the Capitals' underperformance—elite goaltending in an attempt to bridge a gap that was simply too wide. C. Stevenson (19/22, 0.864 SV%) was competent on the other end.

Both teams scored twice on the rush (35 chances for the Capitals, 29 for the Hurricanes). The Capitals' edge was rebounding: they generated five rebound opportunities and converted two, while the Hurricanes created three and buried zero.

J. Sourdif snapped one from the doorstep at 01:42 of overtime—the rare moment the Hurricanes imposed their will.

Three Stars:

  • J. Chychrun (1G, 1A, 28:02)
  • A. Protas (2A, 19:15)
  • J. Carlson (1A, 27:57)
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 31
CAR
3
WSH
4

Capitals run the Hurricanes off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 5.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Capitals earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
2.55
WSH
5.79
31% of the chances69%

The board read CAR 3, WSH 4. The chances read CAR 2.5, WSH 5.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WSH
−1.8
goals above expected
WSH5.79 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR2.55 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 13:27CARM. Jankowski1–0
  2. P1 17:51CARS. Aho2–0
  3. P2 04:16CARS. Gostisbehere3–0
  4. P2 07:52WSHH. Lapierre3–1
  5. P2 14:58WSHD. Strome3–2
  6. P3 13:18WSHJ. Chychrun3–3
  7. OT 01:42WSHJ. Sourdif3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
44 shots
3
Final
107 shots
WSH
63 shots
4
CAR attackWSH attack
CAR WSH Goal
44
shots · 3 in
63
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARWSH
1 / 4
0.93 xG
High danger
2 / 10
2.26 xG
1 / 10
0.96 xG
Medium
2 / 27
2.90 xG
1 / 41
0.66 xG
Low
0 / 44
0.63 xG

The Capitals buried 2 of 10 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
F. Andersen
+1.8
CAR · 38/42
D
C. Stevenson
−0.5
WSH · 19/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Capitals run the Hurricanes 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 12–19
  1. 13:27CARM. Jankowski(W. Carrier, J. Kotkaniemi)1–0
  2. 17:51CARS. Aho2–0
2ndshots 5–7
  1. 04:16CARS. Gostisbehere(J. Martinook, J. Staal)3–0
  2. 07:52WSHH. Lapierre(S. Milano)3–1
  3. 14:58WSHD. Strome(A. Protas, J. Chychrun)3–2
3rdshots 5–13
  1. 13:18WSHJ. Chychrun(A. Protas, T. Wilson)3–3
OTshots 0–3
  1. 01:42WSHJ. Sourdif(J. Carlson, E. Frank)3–4

score reads CAR–WSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.79
WSH chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
0.995
WSH puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
59.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.55Expected goals5.79
WSH 69% of the chance quality
22Shots on goal42
4High-danger chances10
55All attempts (Corsi)81
Adjusted for score: CAR 37% · WSH 63%
Faceoffs · WSH won72%off32%neu36%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR1 / 4 · 0.93 xG
WSH2 / 10 · 2.26 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR1 / 10 · 0.96 xG
WSH2 / 27 · 2.90 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR1 / 41 · 0.66 xG
WSH0 / 44 · 0.63 xG

WSH went 2-for-27 from medium danger on 2.90 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
3 G · 2.55 xG · +0.5
WSH
4 G · 5.79 xG · -1.8
01234567

CAR finished +0.5 against expected, WSH -1.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
SNAP3/31
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/1
WRIST0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/11
WSH
SNAP3/37
SLAP0/9
TIP IN1/9
BACKHAND0/3
WRIST0/4
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/18
CAR
WSH
Off the rush
2 G on 29
1.87 xG
2 G on 35
3.49 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.41 xG
2 G on 5
0.84 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CAR went 3-for-31, WSH 3-for-37. CAR scored 2 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 · 38/42 · .905
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/102.3+0.3
Medium2/272.9+0.9
Low0/440.6+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

C. Stevenson
WSH · 19/22 · .864
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium1/101.0-0.0
Low1/410.7-0.3

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

107 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
44 shots
3
Final
107 shots
WSH
63 shots
4
CAR attackWSH attack
CAR WSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, WSH 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. Chychrun
#6 · D · WSH
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 28:02 on ice · +1
A. Protas
#21 · L · WSH
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 19:15 on ice · +2
J. Carlson
#74 · D · WSH
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 27:57 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 31
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:22 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 Hurricanes win at 2.8 goals, a Capitals response at 2.6, and Carolina gets 54% of the probability—barely an edge. This is effectively a toss-up.

Carolina owns the underlying play. At 56.0% expected goals and 60.0% Corsi, the Hurricanes control the territorial game and generate chances at rates that should sustain. Washington's 50.0% xG tells you what to expect: a team on its heels for stretches.

But here's the complication: Washington is running hot. A PDO of 1.018 means the Capitals are converting at an unsustainable rate. Carolina, by contrast, sits at 0.984—running cold, due for positive regression. That PDO gap is a hidden edge for the Hurricanes.

The players will decide this. Jackson Blake leads Carolina with 14 goals and 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes, showing elite volume in both shooting and creating. Seth Jarvis contributes 17 goals at an 11.9% shooting clip. Alex Ovechkin counters for Washington with 19 goals and 0.97 xG/60, though his 13.8% shooting rate is unsustainable and signals regression ahead. Anthony Beauvillier adds 14 goals at a 10.4% efficiency rate.

Neither team has exploited the goal-mouth chaos. Both sit at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate. That's a setup for variance to decide who converts their limited prime scoring chances.

Carolina should win this game on sustained territorial control and chance quality. The model knows it, giving the Hurricanes the slight edge. But Washington's hot hand and Carolina's PDO deficit create genuine uncertainty. Coin flip is the right read.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 54%
54%
CAR
Model favorite
54%
46%
CAR50WSH

CAR by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.8–2.6 WSH; 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 →WSH
56.0%50.0%
60.0%49.0%
2.982.62
2.312.62
2.262.18
1.951.79
0.9841.018

CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.018) says WSH 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
WSH
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
WSH 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 Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some 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 Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some 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
WSH
Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page