Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Fri, Mar 20 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at TOR

Hurricanes run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTFri, Mar 20
CARCarolina Hurricanes4TORToronto Maple Leafs3
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 4 · TOR 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:02 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

Carolina's dominance was so complete that the 4-3 overtime scoreline understates it. The Hurricanes controlled 63% of expected goals at 5v5 (4.89–2.83), a gap that speaks to suffocation rather than suspense.

The peripherals backed the result. Toronto managed 26 shot attempts to Carolina's 36—42% of the volume—leaving them with 4 high-danger chances to 7. The Hurricanes were lethal off the rush, converting 4 times from 40 chances. Toronto scored 2 from 24, matching the efficiency on a fraction of the volume.

What saved Toronto was goaltending. J. Woll was +0.89 against expected. The Hurricanes underperformed their 4.89 xG, scoring just 4.

Toronto showed resilience in the narrow windows. They were 3-for-4 on high-danger chances (75%). Both teams crashed the net aggressively—Toronto created 4 rebound opportunities and converted 1, while Carolina created 6 but converted none.

Alexander Nikishin's wrist shot from the high slot at 00:41 of overtime ended it.

Final: CAR 4 – TOR 3 (OT)

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 20
CAR
4
TOR
3

Hurricanes run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.9 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
4.89
TOR
2.83
63% of the chances37%

The board read CAR 4, TOR 3. The chances read CAR 4.9, TOR 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−0.9
goals above expected
CAR4.89 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR2.83 expected · 3 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 11:48TORD. Joshua0–1
  2. P2 05:57CARJ. StaalPP1–1
  3. P2 12:35CARE. RobinsonPP2–1
  4. P2 13:47TORJ. Tavares2–2
  5. P2 17:40CARK. MillerSH3–2
  6. P3 13:50TORW. Nylander3–3
  7. OT 00:41CARA. Nikishin4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
54 shots
4
Final
86 shots
TOR
32 shots
3
CAR attackTOR attack
CAR TOR Goal
54
shots · 4 in
32
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARTOR
1 / 7
1.60 xG
High danger
3 / 4
0.95 xG
2 / 26
2.71 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.30 xG
1 / 44
0.58 xG
Low
0 / 28
0.58 xG

High-danger looks: CAR 1 of 7, TOR 3 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Woll
+0.9
TOR · 32/36
C
B. Bussi
−0.2
CAR · 23/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Maple Leafs 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 8–4
  1. 11:48TORD. Joshua(B. Groulx, M. Maccelli)0–1
2ndshots 17–11
  1. 05:57CARJ. Staalpower play(S. Jarvis, S. Aho)1–1
  2. 12:35CARE. Robinsonpower play2–1
  3. 13:47TORJ. Tavares(C. Jarnkrok, J. McCabe)2–2
  4. 17:40CARK. Millershorthanded3–2
3rdshots 10–11
  1. 13:50TORW. Nylander(M. Maccelli)3–3
OTshots 1–0
  1. 00:41CARA. Nikishin(S. Jarvis, S. Aho)4–3

score reads CAR–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.89
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.9
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
0.982
CAR puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
64.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.89Expected goals2.83
CAR 63% of the chance quality
36Shots on goal26
7High-danger chances4
77All attempts (Corsi)43
Adjusted for score: CAR 64% · TOR 36%
Faceoffs · TOR won44%off61%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR1 / 7 · 1.60 xG
TOR3 / 4 · 0.95 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR2 / 26 · 2.71 xG
TOR0 / 11 · 1.30 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR1 / 44 · 0.58 xG
TOR0 / 28 · 0.58 xG

TOR went 3-for-4 from high danger on 0.95 expected goals — 2.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
4 G · 4.89 xG · -0.9
TOR
3 G · 2.83 xG · +0.2
0123456

CAR finished -0.9 against expected, TOR +0.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
WRIST2/24
TIP IN1/9
SLAP0/7
BACKHAND1/6
SNAP0/5
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/23
TOR
WRIST3/29
TIP IN0/0
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/11
CAR
TOR
Off the rush
4 G on 40
3.61 xG
2 G on 24
2.12 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
0.97 xG
1 G on 4
0.53 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 2-for-24, TOR 3-for-29. CAR 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
B. Bussi
CAR · 23/26 · .885
-0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/40.9-2.0
Medium0/111.3+1.3
Low0/280.6+0.6

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

J. Woll
TOR · 32/36 · .889
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.6+0.6
Medium2/262.7+0.7
Low1/440.6-0.4

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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
54 shots
4
Final
86 shots
TOR
32 shots
3
CAR attackTOR attack
CAR TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, TOR 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
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:47 on ice
S. Jarvis
#24 · R · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:56 on ice
M. Maccelli
#63 · L · TOR
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 12:59 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Mar 20
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:01 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 CAR 2.8 - 2.4 TOR victory with the Hurricanes at 57% win probability. Carolina controls the underlying play decisively: they generate 56.0% xG at 5v5 versus Toronto's 46.0%, and dominate territorial battle at 60.0% Corsi compared to 45.0%. That gap matters. When one team outplays another this thoroughly, oddsmakers favor them even in tight results.

Carolina has backed this up. They're 6-4-0 in their last 10, the hotter team. Toronto sits at -13 goal differential over the same stretch—they're losing games they should be controlling.

But the model's lean relies on a particular read of the schedule: Carolina's PDO is 0.984, running cold and due for positive regression. Toronto's is 1.002. One team is getting lucky; the other isn't. Over a season, expected goals drives outcomes. Over one night, regression is a coin flip.

The personnel matchup tilts Carolina's way—assuming Auston Matthews (1.10 xG/60, 17 goals, 13 assists) returns from his day-to-day status after missing 8 days. If he's out, Toronto's offensive ceiling drops sharply. Carolina counters with Jackson Blake (1.06 xG/60, 14 goals, 19 assists, 10.9% shooting) and Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17 goals, 12 assists, 11.9% shooting), both driving play at volume. Toronto's other option, John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15 goals, 24 assists, 12.4% shooting), is effective but secondary to Matthews.

Defensive vulnerabilities exist on both sides: Charles Alexis Legault is Carolina's weak link; Bo Groulx similarly for Toronto. Neither likely changes the game.

The verdict holds. Carolina's expected-goals edge is genuine, their PDO regression is real, and their recent form confirms it. The 57% projection is confidence warranted by the sheet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 57%
57%
CAR
Model favorite
57%
43%
CAR50TOR

CAR by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.8–2.4 TOR; 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 →TOR
56.0%46.0%
60.0%45.0%
2.982.24
2.312.67
2.262.09
1.952.52
0.9841.002

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.002) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CAR
6-4-0
+4 GD · 2d rest
TOR
2-5-3
-13 GD · 3d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.002
TOR 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 46.0%.
  • 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 46.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Hurricanes are the hotter team by points pace (6-4-0 in their last 10).
  • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -13 goal differential over 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
CAR
Expected in goal
F. Andersen
2 days rest.857 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR
Expected in goal
J. Woll
3 days rest.912 last start
Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 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
TOR
Auston Matthews17G 13A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.6% sh
John Tavares15G 24A
0.91 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.4% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page