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

Hurricanes steal one from the Senators against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Hurricanes stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.71–3.26 and won anyway.

OTT 3 · CAR 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:50 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 Senators dominated the Hurricanes 59% to 41% in expected goals at 5v5, yet skated off losers 4-3. This was not a fluke — it was a disciplined heist built on goaltending and efficiency.

B. Bussi saved 1.7 goals above expected, stopping 24 of 27 shots with a 100% mark on eight high-danger chances. J. Reimer, conversely, gave back 0.74 goals; the Senators went 0 for 8 on those same prime scoring areas. Shot quality and finishing split apart from shot volume.

The Hurricanes converted 3 goals off just 16 rush attempts — that's 19% efficiency on the transition, a rate that punishes flat-footed defenses. The Senators, despite owning possession and xG, scattered their firepower: two goals came from low-danger slots, which J. Reimer should have had.

Jordan Staal's snap shot from the high slot — 14:53 of the third period — was when this game tipped. Carolina never surrendered the lead.

S. Aho drove the play with 1G, 2A in 16:50, steering the rush game. J. Sanderson (1G, 1A in 23:15) and D. Cozens (2A in 19:16) led the Senators' push, but volume did not translate to verdict.

Ottawa created 11 rebound opportunities without converting any; Carolina created five and added none either. Both teams clashed at the net, but only the Hurricanes scored when it mattered. This is the xG story in reverse: control without finish, precision without possession.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 3
OTT
3
CAR
4

Hurricanes steal one from the Senators against the run of play

Chances 4.7 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
4.71
CAR
3.26
59% of the chances41%

The board read OTT 3, CAR 4. The chances read OTT 4.7, CAR 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+0.7
goals above expected
CAR3.26 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT4.71 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators left 1.7 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 02:46OTTS. Halliday1–0
  2. P1 17:49CARS. Aho1–1
  3. P2 12:39CARS. JarvisPP1–2
  4. P2 15:41CARS. Jarvis1–3
  5. P2 16:21OTTT. StützlePP2–3
  6. P3 04:57OTTJ. SandersonPP3–3
  7. P3 14:53CARJ. Staal3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
45 shots
3
Final
77 shots
CAR
32 shots
4
OTT attackCAR attack
OTT CAR Goal
45
shots · 3 in
32
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTCAR
0 / 8
1.93 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.51 xG
1 / 16
2.11 xG
Medium
3 / 10
1.33 xG
2 / 32
0.68 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.42 xG

The Senators went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
B. Bussi
+1.7
CAR · 24/27
D
J. Reimer
−0.7
OTT · 15/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes steal one from the Senators against the run of play

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 11–9
  1. 02:46OTTS. Halliday(J. Spence, L. Eller)1–0
  2. 17:49CARS. Aho(K. Miller)1–1
2ndshots 10–8
  1. 12:39CARS. Jarvispower play(A. Svechnikov, S. Aho)1–2
  2. 15:41CARS. Jarvis(S. Aho)1–3
  3. 16:21OTTT. Stützlepower play(J. Sanderson, D. Cozens)2–3
3rdshots 6–2
  1. 04:57OTTJ. Sandersonpower play(D. Batherson, D. Cozens)3–3
  2. 14:53CARJ. Staal(N. Ehlers)3–4

score reads OTT–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.26
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.026
CAR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
47.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.71Expected goals3.26
OTT 59% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal19
8High-danger chances5
56All attempts (Corsi)50
Adjusted for score: OTT 53% · CAR 47%
Faceoffs · CAR won54%off61%neu29%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT0 / 8 · 1.93 xG
CAR1 / 5 · 1.51 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT1 / 16 · 2.11 xG
CAR3 / 10 · 1.33 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT2 / 32 · 0.68 xG
CAR0 / 35 · 0.42 xG

OTT went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.93 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
3 G · 4.71 xG · -1.7
CAR
4 G · 3.26 xG · +0.7
0123456

OTT finished -1.7 against expected, CAR +0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
SNAP0/15
WRIST0/15
SLAP2/5
TIP IN1/2
BACKHAND0/5
DEFLECTED0/3
BAT0/0
OTHER0/11
CAR
SNAP1/15
WRIST2/4
SLAP1/8
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/18
OTT
CAR
Off the rush
1 G on 20
1.95 xG
3 G on 16
1.54 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 11
1.89 xG
0 G on 5
0.54 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 0-for-15, CAR 1-for-15. 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
J. Reimer
OTT · 15/19 · .789
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.5+0.5
Medium3/101.3-1.7
Low0/350.4+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

B. Bussi
CAR · 24/27 · .889
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/81.9+1.9
Medium1/162.1+1.1
Low2/320.7-1.3

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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
45 shots
3
Final
77 shots
CAR
32 shots
4
OTT attackCAR attack
OTT CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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. Aho
#20 · C · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:50 on ice · +2
J. Sanderson
#85 · D · OTT
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:15 on ice · -3
D. Cozens
#24 · C · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:16 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Feb 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:49 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 models can't pick a winner here. The projection is a 2.5 to 2.7 goal spread favoring the Hurricanes, but Carolina carries only 53% win probability—essentially a coin flip with a microscopic tilt.

Both teams are indistinguishable at 56.0% expected goals, generating equivalent scoring chances at even strength. The split appears in how they earn them: the Hurricanes control territory at a 60.0% Corsi clip, while the Senators manage 53.0%. That edge won't always show up in the scoreboard—territorial dominance is a long-term signal, not a nightly guarantee—but expect Carolina to spend more time in Ottawa's zone.

There's a regression watch on Carolina's side. The Hurricanes' PDO sits at 0.984, running cold relative to their underlying play. PDO measures the intersection of shooting accuracy and goaltending save percentage; 0.984 is below neutral, suggesting the Hurricanes are due for positive variance. The Senators' PDO of 0.993 is closer to expectation.

Brady Tkachuk leads Ottawa's attack at 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes, combining 11 goals and 20 assists while shooting at 7.5%—a rate likely to regress downward. Dylan Cozens generates 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals and 15 assists, shooting at 9.5%. Carolina counters with Jackson Blake at 1.06 xG/60 and 14 goals, 19 assists. Seth Jarvis carries 0.98 xG/60 and 17 goals on an unsustainable 11.9% shooting rate.

Defensively, Nick Jensen represents Ottawa's vulnerability; Charles Alexis Legault does the same for Carolina. Exploitation of these seams likely decides an otherwise even matchup.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 53%
53%
CAR
Model favorite
47%
53%
OTT50CAR

CAR by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.5–2.7 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
OTT← edge
edge →CAR
56.0%56.0%
53.0%60.0%
2.662.98
2.122.31
2.182.26
1.991.95
0.9930.984

CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.984) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
OTT
6-2-2
+13 GD · 2d rest
CAR
6-1-3
+11 GD · 2d rest
0.993
OTT 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 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.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
2 days rest.963 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CAR
Expected in goal
B. Bussi
2 days rest.846 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
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
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