Backcheck
Recap · LAK at CAR

Hurricanes run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 3:40 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
LAK
Los Angeles Kings
2
Home
CAR
Carolina Hurricanes
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

1.74Expected goals4.19
71% share for the better side
13Shot attempts (SOG)34
2High-danger chances6
37Corsi (all attempts)77
Score-adjusted: 36% / 65%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
A. ForsbergLAK
+1.2
B. BussiCAR
-0.3

LAK finished +0.3 against expected, CAR -1.2 — A. Forsberg (LAK) saved 1.2 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
S. Gostisbehere
#4 · D · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:41 TOI · +1
B. Dumoulin
#2 · D · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:05 TOI · +1
Q. Byfield
#55 · R · LAK
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 20:00 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • A. Forsberg (LAK) stopped 1.2 goals above expected.
  • CAR couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • CAR was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 34 rush chances.
  • LAK was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 16 rush chances.
  • CAR created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • A. Forsberg was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 6 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · LAK at CAR · 3:00 PM ET

The Hurricanes are the model's lean over the Kings — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 12, 4:03 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

56%
CAR
Model favorite
44%
56%
LAK50CAR

CAR by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.42.7 CAR; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

LAK← edge
edge →CAR
52.0%5v5 xG%56.0%
52.0%Corsi%60.0%
2.42xGF / 602.98
2.20xGA / 602.31
1.85Goals for / gm2.26
1.71Goals against / gm1.95
1.002PDO — luck, not skill0.984

CAR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.002 vs 0.984) says LAK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters