Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Sat, Mar 14 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at TBL

Hurricanes run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Mar 14
CARCarolina Hurricanes4TBLTampa Bay Lightning2
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 4 · TBL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:08 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 Hurricanes won 4-2, but the underlying numbers reveal a more decisive outcome. Carolina controlled 66% of 5v5 expected goals (5.09–2.67), a margin that rendered the two-goal scoreline generous to Tampa Bay. The Lightning held just 35% of shot attempts (19–35) and managed six high-danger chances against eight.

F. Andersen made 17 saves on 19 shots at 0.895 SV%, outperforming expectations by 0.67 goals. A. Vasilevskiy faced 34 shots, stopping 31 (0.912 SV%), and exceeded expectations by 2.09 goals. His brilliance—the difference between a competitive game and a rout—kept Tampa Bay in it.

The Hurricanes underperformed their xG by 1.09 goals, leaving points on the table. Logan Stankoven's snap shot from the point (18:29, P3) shifted momentum early.

Carolina's dominance was evident in volume: seven rebound opportunities to Tampa Bay's four. The Lightning compensated with conversion discipline on rushes, scoring twice on 17 chances, the only dimension where they outpaced their underlying metrics.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 14
CAR
4
TBL
2

Hurricanes run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.1 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
5.09
TBL
2.67
66% of the chances34%

The board read CAR 4, TBL 2. The chances read CAR 5.1, TBL 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−1.1
goals above expected
CAR5.09 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL2.67 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 00:36CARA. Svechnikov1–0
  2. P1 17:28CARS. Aho2–0
  3. P2 14:10TBLY. Gourde2–1
  4. P2 15:31TBLC. D'Astous2–2
  5. P3 09:18CARJ. Martinook3–2
  6. P3 18:29CARL. StankovenEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
52 shots
4
Final
79 shots
TBL
27 shots
2
CAR attackTBL attack
CAR TBL Goal
52
shots · 4 in
27
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARTBL
2 / 8
2.37 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.26 xG
1 / 18
2.10 xG
Medium
0 / 10
1.08 xG
1 / 41
0.62 xG
Low
1 / 22
0.34 xG

The Hurricanes buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Vasilevskiy
+2.1
TBL · 31/34
B
F. Andersen
+0.7
CAR · 17/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Lightning 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 13–10
  1. 00:36CARA. Svechnikov(S. Aho, S. Walker)1–0
  2. 17:28CARS. Aho(A. Svechnikov, K. Miller)2–0
2ndshots 11–7
  1. 14:10TBLY. Gourde(V. Hedman, P. Holmberg)2–1
  2. 15:31TBLC. D'Astous(B. Point, G. Goncalves)2–2
3rdshots 11–2
  1. 09:18CARJ. Martinook(N. Ehlers, M. Reilly)3–2
  2. 18:29CARL. Stankovenempty net(T. Hall)4–2

score reads CAR–TBL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.09
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.1
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.007
CAR puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
63.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.09Expected goals2.67
CAR 66% of the chance quality
35Shots on goal19
8High-danger chances6
67All attempts (Corsi)38
Adjusted for score: CAR 60% · TBL 40%
Faceoffs · TBL won46%off43%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR2 / 8 · 2.37 xG
TBL1 / 6 · 1.26 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR1 / 18 · 2.10 xG
TBL0 / 10 · 1.08 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR1 / 41 · 0.62 xG
TBL1 / 22 · 0.34 xG

CAR went 1-for-18 from medium danger on 2.10 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
4 G · 5.09 xG · -1.1
TBL
2 G · 2.67 xG · -0.7
0123456

CAR finished -1.1 against expected, TBL -0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
WRIST2/32
SNAP2/6
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/2
BAT0/2
OTHER0/15
TBL
WRIST0/9
SNAP1/6
TIP IN1/6
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/11
CAR
TBL
Off the rush
1 G on 33
2.96 xG
2 G on 17
1.39 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 7
0.97 xG
0 G on 4
0.70 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 2-for-32, TBL 0-for-9. TBL 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
F. Andersen
CAR · 17/19 · .895
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.3+0.3
Medium0/101.1+1.1
Low1/220.3-0.7

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

A. Vasilevskiy
TBL · 31/34 · .912
+2.1
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.4+0.4
Medium1/182.1+1.1
Low1/410.6-0.4

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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
52 shots
4
Final
79 shots
TBL
27 shots
2
CAR attackTBL attack
CAR TBL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, TBL 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 · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:28 on ice · +1
A. Svechnikov
#37 · R · CAR
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 19:24 on ice · +1
K. Miller
#19 · D · CAR
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:05 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 14
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:05 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 calls this a dead heat: CAR at 50% win probability, projected score 2.6–2.6. There is no hidden lean here.

Carolina's velocity is real. They've scored 7-3-0 over their last ten, running hotter than Tampa's plodding baseline. That pace advantage alone explains some neutral-rink confidence in the Hurricanes. But the season underlying metrics complicate the forecast.

Carolina dominates shot volume at 5v5: 60.0% Corsi%, 56.0% xG%. They own territorial time. Tampa counters with 54.0% xG%, a respectable number that reflects discipline and positioning. This is not a mismatch. The difference is real but narrow—about two percent of expected goals per 60, a margin that disappears into variance.

Here's where the regression story cuts both ways. Tampa's PDO sits at 1.019—they're executing at a rate above sustainable. That's the math of a hot streak. Carolina's PDO is 0.984, which means their goal-conversion and goaltending efficiency are currently underperforming. By the numbers, Carolina is due for positive regression and Tampa for negative regression. In a single game, that's noise. Across a series, it compounds.

The roster matchup hinges on Tampa's scoring against Carolina's territory. Brandon Hagel (23G, 1.10 xG/60, 15.8% shooting) and Anthony Cirelli (15G, 17.0% shooting) are Tampa's levers. Hagel is particularly dangerous: he combines volume with elite finishing. Cirelli pairs lower shot volume (0.95 xG/60) with an unusually high shooting rate—a sign he's getting high-leverage looks.

For Carolina, Jackson Blake (14G, 1.06 xG/60, 10.9% shooting) and Seth Jarvis (17G, 0.98 xG/60, 11.9% shooting) carry the weight. Blake's output is close to Hagel's in volume but he's converting at a lower clip. Jarvis has more goals on a marginally lower xG rate—a sign of superior finishing.

There is no statistical edge here substantial enough to justify picking a winner. Carolina's territorial dominance is real. Tampa's shooting efficiency is real. The coin lands on edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 50%
50%
CAR
Model favorite
50%
50%
CAR50TBL

CAR by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CAR 2.6–2.6 TBL; 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 →TBL
56.0%54.0%
60.0%53.0%
2.982.67
2.312.28
2.262.38
1.951.85
0.9841.019

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CAR
7-3-0
+9 GD · 2d rest
TBL
4-6-0
-3 GD · 2d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.019
TBL 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 Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • 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 are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CAR
Expected in goal
B. Bussi
2 days rest.875 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL
Expected in goal
A. Vasilevskiy
2 days rest.960 last start
Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page