Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Tue, Mar 10 · the slate
Breakdown · PIT at CAR

Hurricanes run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTTue, Mar 10
PITPittsburgh Penguins4CARCarolina Hurricanes5
The verdict · earned

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

PIT 4 · CAR 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:37 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

S. Skinner (PIT) nearly stole a game his team didn't deserve to be in. The Hurricanes won 5-4 in the shootout after controlling 60% of expected goals (7.08–4.65), but Skinner's +3.08 above expected almost flipped the script. Pittsburgh's goaltender saved the undersized and outshot: the Penguins held 39% of shot attempts (28 on goal) and created just 8 high-danger chances to Carolina's 13.

Why the gap? The Hurricanes underperformed their xG by 3.1 goals—a wasteful night in the attacking zone. F. Andersen (CAR) was steady (0.857 SV%, +0.65 expected), but Skinner (+3.08) was exceptional. Pittsburgh won the areas it could control: the power play (3 goals on 23 shots, 1.99 xG) and rush situations (4 goals on 38 chances vs. Carolina's 2 on 39). Those advantages kept the Penguins afloat despite being dominated at five-on-five.

The shootout truth. Jackson Blake's snap shot from the slot decided it, but the real story was goaltending. Skinner outperformed his underlying numbers so dramatically that he nearly singlehandedly overcame Carolina's territorial dominance. The Hurricanes' control of play held up—barely—when it mattered most.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Mar 10
PIT
4
CAR
5

Hurricanes run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.7 – 7.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
4.65
CAR
7.08
40% of the chances60%

The board read PIT 4, CAR 5. The chances read PIT 4.7, CAR 7.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−2.1
goals above expected
CAR7.08 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT4.65 expected · 4 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 07:46CARL. Stankoven0–1
  2. P1 19:04PITA. Mantha1–1
  3. P2 11:44PITB. RustPP2–1
  4. P3 02:49CARM. Jankowski2–2
  5. P3 03:48CARS. Jarvis2–3
  6. P3 11:21CARA. NikishinPP2–4
  7. P3 17:52PITN. AcciariPP3–4
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
54 shots
5
Final
122 shots
CAR
68 shots
6
PIT attackCAR attack
PIT CAR Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

54
shots · 5 in
68
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITCAR
1 / 8
1.85 xG
High danger
2 / 13
3.26 xG
3 / 19
2.07 xG
Medium
2 / 28
3.17 xG
0 / 39
0.72 xG
Low
0 / 45
0.66 xG

The Hurricanes buried 2 of 13 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Skinner
+3.1
PIT · 40/44
B
F. Andersen
+0.7
CAR · 24/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 9–13
  1. 07:46CARL. Stankoven(M. Reilly, J. Blake)0–1
  2. 19:04PITA. Mantha(V. Koivunen)1–1
2ndshots 10–12
  1. 11:44PITB. Rustpower play(E. Chinakhov, E. Karlsson)2–1
3rdshots 8–16
  1. 02:49CARM. Jankowski(W. Carrier, A. Nikishin)2–2
  2. 03:48CARS. Jarvis(A. Svechnikov)2–3
  3. 11:21CARA. Nikishinpower play(S. Aho, N. Ehlers)2–4
  4. 17:52PITN. Acciaripower play(B. Rust, E. Chinakhov)3–4
  5. 19:24PITB. Rustpower play(R. Rakell, E. Karlsson)4–4
OTshots 1–3no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00PITB. Kindelpower play4–4
    2. 00:00CARA. Svechnikovpower play4–4
    3. 00:00CARJ. Blakepower play4–4

    score reads PIT–CAR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    7.08
    CAR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.986
    CAR puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    56.6%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.65Expected goals7.08
    CAR 60% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal44
    8High-danger chances13
    66All attempts (Corsi)86
    Adjusted for score: PIT 44% · CAR 56%
    Faceoffs · CAR won55%off48%neu38%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    PIT1 / 8 · 1.85 xG
    CAR2 / 13 · 3.26 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    PIT3 / 19 · 2.07 xG
    CAR2 / 28 · 3.17 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    PIT0 / 39 · 0.72 xG
    CAR0 / 45 · 0.66 xG

    CAR went 2-for-13 from high danger on 3.26 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    PIT
    4 G · 4.65 xG · -0.7
    CAR
    5 G · 7.08 xG · -2.1
    012345678

    PIT finished -0.7 against expected, CAR -2.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    PIT
    SNAP3/14
    WRIST1/20
    BACKHAND0/7
    TIP IN0/7
    SLAP0/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/15
    CAR
    SNAP3/31
    WRIST0/10
    BACKHAND1/10
    TIP IN0/6
    SLAP0/6
    DEFLECTED0/1
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/21
    PIT
    CAR
    Off the rush
    4 G on 38
    4.00 xG
    2 G on 39
    4.62 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG
    2 G on 9
    1.82 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: PIT went 3-for-14, CAR 3-for-31. PIT 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
    S. Skinner
    PIT · 40/44 · .909
    +3.1
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/133.3+1.3
    Medium2/283.2+1.2
    Low0/450.7+0.7

    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 · 24/28 · .857
    +0.7
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/81.9+0.8
    Medium3/192.1-0.9
    Low0/390.7+0.7

    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

    122 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    PIT
    54 shots
    5
    Final
    122 shots
    CAR
    68 shots
    6
    PIT attackCAR attack
    PIT CAR Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT 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
    B. Rust
    #17 · R · PIT
    2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 23:14 on ice · +2
    E. Karlsson
    #65 · D · PIT
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 28:01 on ice · +2
    E. Chinakhov
    #59 · R · PIT
    0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 22:26 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Mar 10
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:52 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 2.5–2.9 goal Hurricanes victory at 57% win probability. The underlying play validates the lean: Carolina generates 56.0% expected goals at 5v5 against Pittsburgh's 51.0%, and controls possession at 60.0% Corsi. A 9-point Corsi advantage typically translates to territorial dominance through three periods.

    Pittsburgh's defensive profile—particularly the Caleb Jones pairing—offers the Hurricanes openings to generate chances from prime ice. When a team sustains 60% Corsi in a neutral matchup, that's not randomness; that's structural superiority in how the game's played.

    Luck completes the picture. Carolina's PDO of 0.984 signals they are running below expected on both goals for and against—real regression waiting to happen. Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO tells the inverse story. Over the next handful of games, the Hurricanes' underlying edge widens as PDO normalizes.

    The Penguins face a roster complication: Filip Hallander (1.28 xG/60, 0G, 3A), recalled from the AHL for evaluation on an unspecified issue, carries uncertain availability. Pittsburgh pivots to Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13G, 13A, 12.1% shooting rate, 3 HD goals) as the reliable scoring threat.

    Carolina counters with two dynamic wings: Jackson Blake (1.06 xG/60, 14G, 19A, 2 HD goals, 10.9% shooting) and Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17G, 12A, 1 HD goal, 11.9% shooting). Blake carries more offensive generation per shot; Jarvis converts at a higher rate. Both should find space against Pittsburgh's softer perimeter.

    The xG lean, the Corsi lean, and positive PDO regression all point one direction. Carolina should win—the model sees it, and the structure demands it.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CAR 57%
    57%
    CAR
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    PIT50CAR

    CAR by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.5–2.9 CAR; 17% 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
    PIT← edge
    edge →CAR
    51.0%56.0%
    50.0%60.0%
    2.662.98
    2.552.31
    2.452.26
    2.121.95
    1.0120.984

    CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.984) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    PIT
    4-3-3
    +3 GD · 2d rest
    CAR
    7-2-1
    +10 GD · 2d rest
    1.012
    PIT 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 51.0%.
    • 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 51.0%.
    • 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
    PIT
    Expected in goal
    A. Silovs
    2 days rest.857 last start
    Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    CAR
    Expected in goal
    B. Bussi
    2 days rest.800 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
    PIT
    Filip Hallander0G 3A
    1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
    Rickard Rakell13G 13A
    1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% 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