Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Thu, Feb 26 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at CAR

Hurricanes hold off the Lightning

FinalThu, Feb 26
TBLTampa Bay Lightning4CARCarolina Hurricanes5
The verdict · stolen

The Hurricanes stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.53–3.11 and won anyway.

TBL 4 · CAR 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:35 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 won a game the numbers lost. The Hurricanes' 5–4 victory came against an xG split of 3.11–3.53, a 6-point edge to Tampa Bay that the scoreboard rejected.

The Hurricanes held 54% of shot attempts and finished with precision. They overperformed their 3.11 xG by 1.89 goals, including two conversions from low-danger areas where xG models expect saves. Rush efficiency mirrored exactly: Carolina 4 goals on 26 chances, Tampa 4 on 29. Territorial control meant nothing.

J. Johansson, Tampa's goaltender, yielded 1.89 goals beyond expectation—28 saves on 33 shots for a 0.848 SV%—a variance deficit that liquidated the Lightning's advantage. B. Bussi (24/28, 0.857 SV%) was more forgiving behind the superior play.

Sebastian Aho's slap shot from the point at 7:17 of the third opened the door, but finishing and goaltending wrote the result. Hurricanes made their chances. Johansson didn't.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 26
TBL
4
CAR
5

Hurricanes hold off the Lightning

Chances 3.5 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.53
CAR
3.11
53% of the chances47%

The board read TBL 4, CAR 5. The chances read TBL 3.5, CAR 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+1.9
goals above expected
CAR3.11 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL3.53 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes scored 1.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:43CARN. Ehlers0–1
  2. P1 02:56CARL. Stankoven0–2
  3. P1 06:41CART. Hall0–3
  4. P1 16:30TBLB. Hagel1–3
  5. P1 17:05TBLN. Kucherov2–3
  6. P2 01:58TBLD. James3–3
  7. P2 07:21CARS. Jarvis3–4
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
40 shots
4
Final
81 shots
CAR
41 shots
5
TBL attackCAR attack
TBL CAR Goal
40
shots · 4 in
41
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLCAR
0 / 3
0.59 xG
High danger
1 / 3
1.25 xG
3 / 19
2.41 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.22 xG
1 / 35
0.52 xG
Low
2 / 47
0.63 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
B. Bussi
−0.5
CAR · 24/28
F
J. Johansson
−1.9
TBL · 28/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes hold off the Lightning

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 11–13
  1. 01:43CARN. Ehlers(K. Miller, J. Martinook)0–1
  2. 02:56CARL. Stankoven(T. Hall, J. Chatfield)0–2
  3. 06:41CART. Hall(J. Blake, L. Stankoven)0–3
  4. 16:30TBLB. Hagel(S. Sabourin, J. Guentzel)1–3
  5. 17:05TBLN. Kucherov(B. Point, J. Moser)2–3
2ndshots 11–10
  1. 01:58TBLD. James(J. Guentzel, R. McDonagh)3–3
  2. 07:21CARS. Jarvis(A. Svechnikov, M. Jankowski)3–4
  3. 14:02TBLB. Pointpower play(J. Guentzel, D. Raddysh)4–4
3rdshots 6–10
  1. 07:17CARS. Ahopower play(S. Jarvis, A. Svechnikov)4–5

score reads TBL–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.11
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.010
CAR puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
52.1%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.53Expected goals3.11
TBL 53% of the chance quality
28Shots on goal33
3High-danger chances3
57All attempts (Corsi)62
Adjusted for score: TBL 52% · CAR 48%
Faceoffs · CAR won48%off32%neu52%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL0 / 3 · 0.59 xG
CAR1 / 3 · 1.25 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL3 / 19 · 2.41 xG
CAR2 / 12 · 1.22 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 35 · 0.52 xG
CAR2 / 47 · 0.63 xG

CAR went 2-for-47 from low danger on 0.63 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
4 G · 3.53 xG · +0.5
CAR
5 G · 3.11 xG · +1.9
0123456

TBL finished +0.5 against expected, CAR +1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
SNAP4/13
WRIST0/15
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/3
OTHER0/17
CAR
SNAP2/19
WRIST2/9
SLAP1/6
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/3
OTHER0/21
TBL
CAR
Off the rush
4 G on 29
2.89 xG
4 G on 26
1.90 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.39 xG
0 G on 1
0.23 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 4-for-13, CAR 2-for-19. TBL scored 4 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. Johansson
TBL · 28/33 · .848
-1.9
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/31.3+0.3
Medium2/121.2-0.8
Low2/470.6-1.4

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 · 24/28 · .857
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.6+0.6
Medium3/192.4-0.6
Low1/350.5-0.5

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
40 shots
4
Final
81 shots
CAR
41 shots
5
TBL attackCAR attack
TBL CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL 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
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
0 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 22:03 on ice · +1
B. Point
#21 · C · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:06 on ice
A. Svechnikov
#37 · R · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:36 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Feb 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:34 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 2.5 - 2.8 game with the Hurricanes at 55% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Both teams play strong 5v5 hockey, but Carolina holds a structural edge. The Hurricanes drive play at 60.0% Corsi, compared to Tampa's 53.0%, translating to 56.0% expected goals against the Lightning's 54.0%. That territorial advantage should let Carolina control the flow for stretches.

Neither team has earned its luck. Carolina's 0.984 PDO suggests they're running cold and due for positive regression—their process is outpacing their results. Tampa sits the opposite direction: 1.019 PDO means the Lightning have caught favorable bounces and should expect some regression, a risk in a close game.

The matchup hinges on individual performance. Brandon Hagel carries most of Tampa's offensive load with 23 goals and 1.10 xG/60, shooting at 15.8% while generating two high-danger goals—efficient and consistent. Anthony Cirelli runs 15 goals, 0.95 xG/60, and a 17.0% shooting rate with five high-danger goals, showing volatility typical of second-line centers.

Carolina counters with Jackson Blake, who has 14 goals at 1.06 xG/60 with 2 high-danger goals and 10.9% shooting—operating at roughly Cirelli's scoring rate but shooting cold, leaving upside. Seth Jarvis carries 17 goals, 0.98 xG/60, 1 high-danger goal, and 11.9% shooting. He scores on volume rather than high-danger opportunities.

The defensive vulnerabilities tell the story's backside: Victor Hedman for Tampa and Charles Alexis Legault for Carolina represent matchup targets. Neither team generates meaningful rebound or high-danger-goal opportunities at scale (both posting 0% rates), so positional defense matters more than scramble recovery.

This is the kind of game where small swings—a PDO bounce, a Hagel point, Carolina's Corsi finally converting—determine the winner. The model knows it too.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 55%
55%
CAR
Model favorite
45%
55%
TBL50CAR

CAR by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.5–2.8 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
TBL← edge
edge →CAR
54.0%56.0%
53.0%60.0%
2.672.98
2.282.31
2.382.26
1.851.95
1.0190.984

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.984) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TBL
8-1-1
+15 GD · 20d rest
CAR
8-0-2
+18 GD · 20d rest
1.019
TBL 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.
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some 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
TBL
Expected in goal
A. Vasilevskiy
20 days rest.971 last start
Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CAR
Expected in goal
B. Bussi
20 days rest1.000 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
TBL
Brandon Hagel23G 26A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 15.8% sh
Anthony Cirelli15G 18A
0.95 xG/60 · 5 HD · 17.0% 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

Back to the front page