Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Wed, Mar 18 · the slate
Breakdown · PIT at CAR

Hurricanes edge the Penguins in overtime

Final / OTWed, Mar 18
PITPittsburgh Penguins5CARCarolina Hurricanes6
The verdict · earned

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

PIT 5 · CAR 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:41 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

Pittsburgh accumulated superior shot quality — 0.080 expected goals per shot versus Carolina's 0.058 — yet the Hurricanes won 6-5 in overtime. Underlying play suggested a tighter contest: the Hurricanes' edge in expected goals was just 4.79–4.16, or 54–46 percent, despite controlling 56 percent of shot attempts. Both teams vastly overshot their xG projections — the Hurricanes by 1.21 goals, Pittsburgh by 0.84 — a sign that variance, not dominance, decided the night.

Sean Walker's slap shot from the high slot at 04:31 of overtime ended it.

High-danger chances split evenly at 7–7. Pittsburgh was sharper off the rush, with 5 goals on 27 attempts, while Carolina scored 6 times on 45 chances. Both teams generated rebound opportunities (7 and 6, respectively) but failed to convert.

S. Skinner (PIT) faced 44 shots, saved 38 (0.864 SV%), allowing 1.21 goals above expectation. F. Andersen (CAR) made 30 saves on 35 shots (0.857 SV%), yielding 0.84 goals beyond the model.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 18
PIT
5
CAR
6

Hurricanes edge the Penguins in overtime

Chances 4.2 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
4.16
CAR
4.79
47% of the chances54%

The board read PIT 5, CAR 6. The chances read PIT 4.2, CAR 4.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+1.2
goals above expected
CAR4.79 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT4.16 expected · 5 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 09:34CARJ. MartinookSH0–1
  2. P2 09:57PITS. Crosby1–1
  3. P2 16:51CARJ. Blake1–2
  4. P3 00:59PITE. KarlssonPP2–2
  5. P3 03:27CART. Hall2–3
  6. P3 07:16PITB. Rust3–3
  7. P3 12:59CARL. StankovenPP3–4
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
42 shots
5
Final
107 shots
CAR
65 shots
6
PIT attackCAR attack
PIT CAR Goal
42
shots · 5 in
65
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITCAR
1 / 7
1.49 xG
High danger
2 / 7
1.58 xG
3 / 18
2.18 xG
Medium
3 / 22
2.20 xG
1 / 27
0.49 xG
Low
1 / 53
1.00 xG

The Hurricanes buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D-
F. Andersen
−0.8
CAR · 30/35
D-
S. Skinner
−1.2
PIT · 38/44
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes edge the Penguins in overtime

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 12–15
  1. 09:34CARJ. Martinookshorthanded(J. Staal, J. Slavin)0–1
2ndshots 7–14
  1. 09:57PITS. Crosby(R. Rakell, E. Karlsson)1–1
  2. 16:51CARJ. Blake(T. Hall, N. Ehlers)1–2
3rdshots 13–14
  1. 00:59PITE. Karlssonpower play(R. Rakell, E. Malkin)2–2
  2. 03:27CART. Hall(J. Blake, L. Stankoven)2–3
  3. 07:16PITB. Rust3–3
  4. 12:59CARL. Stankovenpower play(N. Ehlers, J. Blake)3–4
  5. 14:46PITE. Karlsson(P. Wotherspoon, S. Crosby)4–4
  6. 15:09PITB. Kindel(A. Mantha, I. Solovyov)5–4
  7. 17:09CARK. Miller(S. Walker, N. Ehlers)5–5
OTshots 3–1
  1. 04:31CARS. Walker(S. Aho, S. Jarvis)5–6

score reads PIT–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.79
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
0.977
CAR puck luck
Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
61.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.16Expected goals4.79
CAR 54% of the chance quality
35Shots on goal44
7High-danger chances7
52All attempts (Corsi)82
Adjusted for score: PIT 40% · CAR 60%
Faceoffs · CAR won62%off52%neu40%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT1 / 7 · 1.49 xG
CAR2 / 7 · 1.58 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT3 / 18 · 2.18 xG
CAR3 / 22 · 2.20 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT1 / 27 · 0.49 xG
CAR1 / 53 · 1.00 xG

PIT went 3-for-18 from medium danger on 2.18 expected goals — 0.8 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
5 G · 4.16 xG · +0.8
CAR
6 G · 4.79 xG · +1.2
01234567

PIT finished +0.8 against expected, CAR +1.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST0/18
SNAP2/7
SLAP1/7
BACKHAND2/6
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/10
CAR
WRIST1/22
SNAP2/19
SLAP1/11
BACKHAND2/7
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED0/2
BAT0/0
OTHER0/17
PIT
CAR
Off the rush
5 G on 27
2.62 xG
6 G on 45
3.60 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
0.87 xG
0 G on 7
0.97 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 0-for-18, CAR 1-for-22. CAR scored 6 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 · 38/44 · .864
-1.2
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.6-0.4
Medium3/222.2-0.8
Low1/531.0+0.0

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 · 30/35 · .857
-0.8
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.5+0.5
Medium3/182.2-0.8
Low1/270.5-0.5

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

107 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
42 shots
5
Final
107 shots
CAR
65 shots
6
PIT attackCAR attack
PIT CAR Goal

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
E. Karlsson
#65 · D · PIT
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 24:02 on ice
J. Blake
#53 · R · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:06 on ice · +1
N. Ehlers
#27 · L · CAR
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 17:50 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Mar 18
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:39 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

Carolina projects to win 57% of the time, with a model score of 2.5–2.9 goals in their favor. The edge flows from underlying dominance: the Hurricanes control 56.0% 5v5 xG against Pittsburgh's 51.0%, and drive territorial tilt at 60.0% Corsi compared to Pittsburgh's 50.0%. This isn't a close possession battle.

Positive PDO regression heavily favors Carolina. The Hurricanes' 0.984 PDO reveals they're running cold on the conversion side—a situation that typically corrects itself. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO suggests they've benefited from fortunate bounces. Expect the Hurricanes to even out in Carolina's direction.

Goaltending complications add another layer. B. Bussi and A. Silovs are both on back-to-backs, making tired starters or backup appearances likely. Fatigue in net can swing a tight matchup.

Pittsburgh's injury report cuts deeper. Filip Hallander, a 1.28 xG/60 threat, has been recalled from his conditioning loan with the WBSPenguins for further evaluation and testing—he's likely unavailable. This forces Pittsburgh to rely more heavily on Rickard Rakell, whose 12.1% shooting rate and 13 goals suggest he's been efficient.

Carolina's advantage in skilled forwards intensifies without Hallander in the mix. Jackson Blake combines 14 goals with 1.06 xG/60, while Seth Jarvis adds 17 goals and 0.98 xG/60. The Hurricanes have the model, the metrics, and the healthy roster.

Players to Watch

  • Rickard Rakell (PIT) — 13G 13A, 1.01 xG/60, 12.1% shooting
  • Jackson Blake (CAR) — 14G 19A, 1.06 xG/60, 10.9% shooting
  • Seth Jarvis (CAR) — 17G 12A, 0.98 xG/60, 11.9% shooting
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
+0 GD · 1d rest
CAR
6-4-0
+4 GD · 1d 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.
  • B. Bussi is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • A. Silovs is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • 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
back-to-back.926 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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.833 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
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