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

Hurricanes shut out the Rangers, 2-0

The verdict · earned

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

CAR 2 · NYR 0
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:18 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

Carolina dominated expected goals (4.31–2.07, 68% share), limited the Rangers to 27% of shot attempts, yet the 2-0 shutout masks a game in which both teams massively underperformed. Bussi's +2.07 save rate and Quick's +3.31 were the game within the game—two goalies playing well above their xG model despite the Hurricanes holding territorial control.

The Rangers managed only 16 of 43 shot attempts and generated just two high-danger chances against Carolina's five. Their 2.07 expected goals went unrewarded. Quick's outperformance (3.31 goals above expectation) reveals the toll: despite the shot disparity, he faced enough danger to require saves well above the xGA model. The Hurricanes controlled play yet underperformed their 4.31 xG by 2.31 goals—evidence that both teams squandered opportunities.

Jordan Staal's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 19:06) broke it open. Carolina's rush attack proved lethal: two goals on 39 attempts. Both teams created four rebound opportunities and converted zero—a missed avenue for the Rangers, already starved for scoring chances.

Bussi stopped 16 of 16 shots (1.000 SV%, +2.07 vs expected), while Quick made 41 saves on 42 attempts (0.976 SV%, +3.31 vs expected). The goaltending matchup encapsulated the game: two above-expectation performances masking how much both rosters wasted on the ice.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 5
CAR
2
NYR
0

Hurricanes shut out the Rangers, 2-0

Chances 4.3 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
4.31
NYR
2.07
68% of the chances32%

The board read CAR 2, NYR 0. The chances read CAR 4.3, NYR 2.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−2.3
goals above expected
CAR4.31 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
NYR2.07 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Rangers left 2.1 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 06:26CARA. Svechnikov1–0
  2. P3 19:06CARJ. StaalEN2–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
63 shots
2
Final
89 shots
NYR
26 shots
0
CAR attackNYR attack
CAR NYR Goal
63
shots · 2 in
26
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARNYR
1 / 5
1.56 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.48 xG
1 / 21
1.97 xG
Medium
0 / 12
1.24 xG
0 / 59
0.78 xG
Low
0 / 23
0.34 xG

High-danger looks: CAR 1 of 5, NYR 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Quick
+3.3
NYR · 41/42
A
B. Bussi
+2.1
CAR · 16/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes shut out the Rangers, 2-0

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 10–6
  1. 06:26CARA. Svechnikov(M. Jankowski)1–0
2ndshots 19–4no goals
    3rdshots 14–6
    1. 19:06CARJ. Staalempty net(N. Ehlers, J. Blake)2–0

    score reads CAR–NYR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.31
    CAR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.3
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.024
    CAR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    69.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.31Expected goals2.07
    CAR 68% of the chance quality
    43Shots on goal16
    5High-danger chances2
    85All attempts (Corsi)37
    Adjusted for score: CAR 66% · NYR 34%
    Faceoffs · NYR won25%off60%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CAR1 / 5 · 1.56 xG
    NYR0 / 2 · 0.48 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CAR1 / 21 · 1.97 xG
    NYR0 / 12 · 1.24 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CAR0 / 59 · 0.78 xG
    NYR0 / 23 · 0.34 xG

    NYR went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.24 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CAR
    2 G · 4.31 xG · -2.3
    NYR
    0 G · 2.07 xG · -2.1
    012345

    CAR finished -2.3 against expected, NYR -2.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CAR
    WRIST1/33
    SNAP1/13
    SLAP0/10
    TIP IN0/1
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/22
    NYR
    WRIST0/13
    SNAP0/1
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/11
    CAR
    NYR
    Off the rush
    2 G on 39
    2.86 xG
    0 G on 15
    1.12 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.76 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.57 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-33, NYR 0-for-13. 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
    B. Bussi
    CAR · 16/16 · 1.000
    +2.1
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.5+0.5
    Medium0/121.2+1.2
    Low0/230.3+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

    J. Quick
    NYR · 41/42 · .976
    +3.3
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.6+0.6
    Medium1/212.0+1.0
    Low0/590.8+0.8

    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

    89 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CAR
    63 shots
    2
    Final
    89 shots
    NYR
    26 shots
    0
    CAR attackNYR attack
    CAR NYR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, NYR 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
    A. Svechnikov
    #37 · R · CAR
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 18:20 on ice · +1
    J. Staal
    #11 · C · CAR
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 17:21 on ice · +1
    N. Ehlers
    #27 · L · CAR
    0 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 16:01 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Feb 5
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:14 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 CAR 2.7–2.4 Rangers matchup with the Hurricanes at 55% win probability. The edge rests on everything that analytics reward: puck possession, shot quality, and a skew in shooting luck built for positive correction.

    Form tells the first story. Carolina has posted 7-1-2 over its last ten games while New York sits at -12 goal differential across the same stretch. The Hurricanes are the hotter team; the Rangers are not.

    Season 5v5 numbers explain why. Carolina owns a 56.0% expected-goals share versus New York's 48.0%—a gap rooted in shot quality and volume. The Corsi split expands further: 60.0% for the Hurricanes, 49.0% for the Rangers. Carolina controls the game territorially and does so without playing defensive hockey. It plays dominant hockey.

    The deeper edge lies in PDO. Carolina's 0.984 sits below par—shooting and save percentage combined are running cold. This is not a talent question; it is regression waiting to happen. As the Hurricanes' actual results converge with their underlying play, the projection tightens in their direction.

    Rest works against Carolina. The Rangers arrive on five days between games; the Hurricanes on one. That margin matters in the third period, more so if B. Bussi starts on the back-to-back and fatigue creeps into his positioning.

    The player level reinforces the team story. Jackson Blake leads with 14 goals at 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes of 5v5—a 10.9% shooting rate unsustainable over a full season. He has two high-danger goals. Seth Jarvis sits at 17 goals on 0.98 xG/60 with an 11.9% conversion rate and one high-danger goal. These are not lucky scorers. They are executing at the rate the model expects.

    The Rangers produce less at the scoring line. Adam Sykora has three goals on 0.91 xG/60, a 20.0% shooting rate that cannot last. Gabe Perreault has eight goals on 0.79 xG/60, a 13.1% rate, with two high-danger goals. The production floor is lower.

    The model is leaning Hurricanes because the underlying advantage is large, and the variance—rest, goaltending, individual luck—cannot invert it.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CAR 55%
    55%
    CAR
    Model favorite
    55%
    45%
    CAR50NYR

    CAR by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.7–2.4 NYR; 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 →NYR
    56.0%48.0%
    60.0%49.0%
    2.982.26
    2.312.40
    2.261.88
    1.951.90
    0.9841.009

    CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.009) says NYR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CAR
    7-1-2
    +13 GD · 1d rest
    NYR
    2-8-0
    -12 GD · 5d rest
    0.984
    CAR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.009
    NYR 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 48.0%.
    • 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 48.0%.
    • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • B. Bussi 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 Rangers are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Rangers have 4 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CAR
    Expected in goal
    B. Bussi
    back-to-back.889 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.

    NYR
    Expected in goal
    J. Quick
    5 days rest.848 last start
    Backup Igor Shesterkin · +21.3 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
    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
    NYR
    Adam Sykora3G 1A
    0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
    Gabe Perreault8G 11A
    0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next