Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Sat, Feb 28 · the slate
Breakdown · DET at CAR

Hurricanes pull away from the Red Wings

FinalSat, Feb 28
DETDetroit Red Wings2CARCarolina Hurricanes5
The verdict · earned

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

DET 2 · CAR 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:02 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

Andersen's 0.931 save percentage and Detroit's 0/7 finish on high-danger chances decided this game before the scoreboard reached 5-2. Carolina's 4.18 expected goals barely justified the margin; the Hurricanes' dominance was a goaltending story, not an underlying-play one.

Talbot faced 36 shots, saved 31 (0.861 SV%), underperforming his xG by 0.82 goals. Andersen stopped every high-danger attempt (7/7) and overperformed hers by 1.12 — a combined swing of nearly two goals. The rush game amplified the gap: Carolina scored 5 goals on 34 rush chances; Detroit, 2 on 18. Talbot faced a team that crashed effectively (5 rebound opportunities created) but couldn't finish.

Jackson Blake's wrist shot from the high slot at 5:30 of the third period appeared to mark Detroit's defensive fracture, but the outcome was decided well before by goaltending.

Carolina controlled 55% of shot attempts and 57% of 5v5 expected goals (4.18 to 3.12), evidence of steady pressure. The 5-2 scoreline was built on Andersen's wall and Detroit's inability to convert: zero goals on seven high-danger chances won't happen often.

Three Stars

  • #4 S. Gostisbehere (CAR) — 1G, 2A in 19:43
  • #71 T. Hall (CAR) — 1G, 2A in 16:33
  • #53 J. Blake (CAR) — 1G, 1A in 17:47
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 28
DET
2
CAR
5

Hurricanes pull away from the Red Wings

Chances 3.1 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
3.12
CAR
4.18
43% of the chances57%

The board read DET 2, CAR 5. The chances read DET 3.1, CAR 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+0.8
goals above expected
CAR4.18 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
DET3.12 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 14:05CART. Hall0–1
  2. P1 19:52CARS. AhoPP0–2
  3. P2 02:52CARE. Robinson0–3
  4. P2 18:26DETS. Edvinsson1–3
  5. P2 19:13DETP. Kane2–3
  6. P3 02:18CARS. Gostisbehere2–4
  7. P3 05:30CARJ. Blake2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
35 shots
2
Final
81 shots
CAR
46 shots
5
DET attackCAR attack
DET CAR Goal
35
shots · 2 in
46
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETCAR
0 / 7
1.58 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.65 xG
2 / 9
1.12 xG
Medium
3 / 17
1.95 xG
0 / 26
0.43 xG
Low
1 / 46
0.57 xG

The Red Wings went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
F. Andersen
+1.1
CAR · 27/29
D-
C. Talbot
−0.8
DET · 31/36
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes pull away from the Red Wings

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 6–11
  1. 14:05CART. Hall0–1
  2. 19:52CARS. Ahopower play(S. Gostisbehere, S. Jarvis)0–2
2ndshots 17–14
  1. 02:52CARE. Robinson(W. Carrier, S. Walker)0–3
  2. 18:26DETS. Edvinsson(A. DeBrincat, D. Larkin)1–3
  3. 19:13DETP. Kane(M. Seider, J. Compher)2–3
3rdshots 6–11
  1. 02:18CARS. Gostisbehere(J. Blake, T. Hall)2–4
  2. 05:30CARJ. Blake(T. Hall, S. Gostisbehere)2–5

score reads DET–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.18
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.024
CAR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
62.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.12Expected goals4.18
CAR 57% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal36
7High-danger chances7
42All attempts (Corsi)70
Adjusted for score: DET 43% · CAR 57%
Faceoffs · CAR won77%off61%neu32%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DET0 / 7 · 1.58 xG
CAR1 / 7 · 1.65 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DET2 / 9 · 1.12 xG
CAR3 / 17 · 1.95 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DET0 / 26 · 0.43 xG
CAR1 / 46 · 0.57 xG

DET went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.58 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DET
2 G · 3.12 xG · -1.1
CAR
5 G · 4.18 xG · +0.8
0123456

DET finished -1.1 against expected, CAR +0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DET
WRIST0/22
SNAP2/8
BACKHAND0/5
SLAP0/0
TIP IN0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/7
CAR
WRIST3/17
SNAP2/16
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/2
WRAP AROUND0/2
BAT0/1
OTHER0/24
DET
CAR
Off the rush
2 G on 18
1.86 xG
5 G on 34
3.78 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.89 xG
0 G on 1
0.04 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 0-for-22, CAR 3-for-17. CAR scored 5 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
C. Talbot
DET · 31/36 · .861
-0.8
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.6+0.7
Medium3/171.9-1.1
Low1/460.6-0.4

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

F. Andersen
CAR · 27/29 · .931
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.6+1.6
Medium2/91.1-0.9
Low0/260.4+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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DET
35 shots
2
Final
81 shots
CAR
46 shots
5
DET attackCAR attack
DET CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:43 on ice · +2
T. Hall
#71 · L · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:33 on ice · +2
J. Blake
#53 · R · CAR
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 17:47 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Feb 28
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:00 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 DET 2.3 - 2.9 CAR game with the Hurricanes at 59% win probability. Carolina's form backs the call: they're 8-0-2 in their last 10, taking the sustained play advantage into a matchup where the underlying numbers heavily favor their way.

The Hurricanes own the territorial tilt at 5v5. They're generating 56.0% expected goals to Detroit's 49.0%, and controlling possession at 60.0% Corsi—territorial dominance enough to expect sustained pressure. The Red Wings' weak expected-goals share reflects a season-long imbalance that hasn't sorted itself yet.

Carolina's one vulnerability is PDO regression. At 0.984, they're running cold in the goal-luck department, exactly where games tighten if variance swings the other way. Detroit's PDO sits at 0.985—marginally warmer, but not a meaningful edge.

Goaltending is a wildcard: B. Bussi and J. Gibson both face back-to-backs, so watch for backup deployment or diminished starter performance.

The player mismatches cut both ways. Alex DeBrincat is Detroit's primary engine at 0.88 xG/60 with 17 goals and 28 assists; his 2 high-danger goals and 9.0% shooting show he's both generating quality chances and cashing them at an elite rate. Marco Kasper, at 0.81 xG/60, has 7 goals, 8 assists, and 1 high-danger goal, but just 6.1% shooting—creating offense but leaving chances on the table.

Carolina counters with Jackson Blake, who stands out at 1.06 xG/60 with 14 goals and 19 assists. His 2 high-danger goals and 10.9% shooting mark him as the game's most dangerous forward. Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17 goals, 12 assists) can contribute secondary punch; his 1 high-danger goal and 11.9% shooting reveal a finisher who's efficient if less relentless than Blake.

Both teams score at 0% from high-danger and rebound situations, suggesting production comes from established play. Detroit's defensive weak link is Axel Sandin-Pellikka; Carolina's is Charles Alexis Legault. If the offensive talent breaks through their respective defenses, these are the soft spots.

The verdict rests on whether Carolina's underlying dominance holds against back-to-back fatigue and goal-luck regression. Expect the Hurricanes to control play; whether they convert is another question.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 59%
59%
CAR
Model favorite
41%
59%
DET50CAR

CAR by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score DET 2.3–2.9 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
DET← edge
edge →CAR
49.0%56.0%
49.0%60.0%
2.382.98
2.502.31
1.732.26
2.071.95
0.9850.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.984) says DET has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DET
5-3-2
-3 GD · 1d rest
CAR
8-0-2
+11 GD · 1d rest
0.985
DET 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 49.0%.
  • 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 49.0%.
  • 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.
  • J. Gibson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Hurricanes are the hotter team by points pace (8-0-2 in their last 10).
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
DET
Expected in goal
J. Gibson
back-to-back.963 last start
Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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
B. Bussi
back-to-back.857 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
DET
Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
Marco Kasper7G 8A
0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% 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