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

Hurricanes run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 2 · CAR 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:40 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 won 3-2 in overtime. The underlying numbers showed they dominated play—71% of 5v5 expected goals (4.19–1.74), 72% of shot attempts (34–13), six high-danger chances to LAK's two. The scoresheet barely reflected this edge, and Forsberg is why.

Carolina's advantage was absolute. They outchanced Los Angeles decisively and scored efficiently in transition—three goals on 34 rush attempts. But they couldn't finish high-danger looks: zero goals on six attempts. A. Forsberg faced all six and stopped all six, posting a 0.912 SV% and +1.19 against expected. That's the kind of goaltending that wins games in a vacuum. Carolina had enough firepower elsewhere to overcome it anyway.

The Hurricanes underperformed their expected goals by 1.19, a rare inversion where the underlying story nearly contradicts the scoreboard. Carolina controlled play but couldn't convert when it mattered most. LAK, predictably, squeezed maximum value from minimal chances—two goals on 16 rush attempts and a save-percentage miracle in goal.

Sebastian Aho's snap shot from the top of the circles at 01:25 of overtime sealed it. S. Gostisbehere (2A in 18:41) was the offensive engine, anchoring the possession dominance that left LAK outmatched.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Feb 1
LAK
2
CAR
3

Hurricanes run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.7 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
1.74
CAR
4.19
29% of the chances71%

The board read LAK 2, CAR 3. The chances read LAK 1.7, CAR 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−1.2
goals above expected
CAR4.19 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK1.74 expected · 2 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 06:25CARJ. StaalPP0–1
  2. P3 12:57CARA. Nikishin0–2
  3. P3 13:21LAKS. Helenius1–2
  4. P3 16:49LAKQ. Byfield2–2
  5. OT 01:25CARS. Aho2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
25 shots
2
Final
76 shots
CAR
51 shots
3
LAK attackCAR attack
LAK CAR Goal
25
shots · 2 in
51
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKCAR
0 / 2
0.40 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.32 xG
2 / 8
0.94 xG
Medium
3 / 20
2.14 xG
0 / 27
0.40 xG
Low
0 / 51
0.73 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 0 of 2, CAR 0 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Forsberg
+1.2
LAK · 31/34
D
B. Bussi
−0.3
CAR · 11/13
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Kings 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 4–4
  1. 06:25CARJ. Staalpower play(A. Svechnikov, S. Gostisbehere)0–1
2ndshots 4–14no goals
    3rdshots 5–13
    1. 12:57CARA. Nikishin0–2
    2. 13:21LAKS. Helenius(J. Malott, B. Dumoulin)1–2
    3. 16:49LAKQ. Byfield(A. Kempe)2–2
    OTshots 0–3
    1. 01:25CARS. Aho(S. Jarvis, S. Gostisbehere)2–3

    score reads LAK–CAR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.19
    CAR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.985
    CAR puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    67.5%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    1.74Expected goals4.19
    CAR 71% of the chance quality
    13Shots on goal34
    2High-danger chances6
    37All attempts (Corsi)77
    Adjusted for score: LAK 36% · CAR 65%
    Faceoffs · CAR won68%off47%neu32%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    LAK0 / 2 · 0.40 xG
    CAR0 / 6 · 1.32 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    LAK2 / 8 · 0.94 xG
    CAR3 / 20 · 2.14 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    LAK0 / 27 · 0.40 xG
    CAR0 / 51 · 0.73 xG

    CAR went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.32 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    LAK
    2 G · 1.74 xG · +0.3
    CAR
    3 G · 4.19 xG · -1.2
    012345

    LAK finished +0.3 against expected, CAR -1.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    LAK
    SNAP2/12
    WRIST0/8
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN0/1
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/12
    CAR
    SNAP2/26
    WRIST0/13
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN1/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/26
    LAK
    CAR
    Off the rush
    2 G on 16
    1.16 xG
    3 G on 34
    3.03 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.51 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 2-for-12, CAR 2-for-26. 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
    A. Forsberg
    LAK · 31/34 · .912
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.3+1.3
    Medium3/202.1-0.9
    Low0/510.7+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 · 11/13 · .846
    -0.3
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium2/80.9-1.1
    Low0/270.4+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

    76 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    LAK
    25 shots
    2
    Final
    76 shots
    CAR
    51 shots
    3
    LAK attackCAR attack
    LAK CAR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK 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
    S. Gostisbehere
    #4 · D · CAR
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:41 on ice · +1
    B. Dumoulin
    #2 · D · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:05 on ice · +1
    Q. Byfield
    #55 · R · LAK
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 20:00 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Feb 1
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:03 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 favors Carolina at 56% win probability, projecting a 2.4 to 2.7 goal game. The Hurricanes own the underlying play decisively: 56.0% 5v5 xG% against Los Angeles's 52.0%, plus 60.0% Corsi% that dictates territorial control. Both metrics signal Carolina's superior possession and chance-generation.

    The variance catch: Carolina's PDO of 0.984 indicates they're running cold. Positive regression is incoming. Los Angeles sits at 1.002 — league average — so if Carolina normalizes, the competitive gap only widens. This is the Kings' sole path: staying close while Carolina reverts to mean.

    Both F. Andersen and D. Kuemper are on back-to-backs. A tired starter or backup appearance is Los Angeles's clearest wildcard.

    Players to Watch:

    • Alex Laferriere (LAK): 16G 18A, 2 HD goals, 0.87 xG/60, 9.9% shooting
    • Jackson Blake (CAR): 14G 19A, 2 HD goals, 1.06 xG/60, 10.9% shooting
    • Seth Jarvis (CAR): 17G 12A, 1 HD goal, 0.98 xG/60, 11.9% shooting
    • Jared Wright (LAK): 0G 4A, 0.83 xG/60

    Adrian Kempe is Los Angeles's defensive weak link; Charles Alexis Legault is Carolina's.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CAR 56%
    56%
    CAR
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    LAK50CAR

    CAR by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.4–2.7 CAR; 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
    LAK← edge
    edge →CAR
    52.0%56.0%
    52.0%60.0%
    2.422.98
    2.202.31
    1.852.26
    1.711.95
    1.0020.984

    CAR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.984) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    LAK
    5-2-3
    -2 GD · 1d rest
    CAR
    6-1-3
    +11 GD · 1d rest
    1.002
    LAK 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 52.0%.
    • 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 52.0%.
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • F. Andersen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    back-to-back.905 last start
    Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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.

    CAR
    Expected in goal
    F. Andersen
    back-to-back.905 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.

    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
    LAK
    Alex Laferriere16G 18A
    0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
    Jared Wright0G 4A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% 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