Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Sun, Mar 22 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at PIT

Hurricanes run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSun, Mar 22
CARCarolina Hurricanes5PITPittsburgh Penguins1
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 5 · PIT 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:26 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 beat Pittsburgh 5-1 with underlying numbers that explained every goal: they commanded 66% of 5v5 expected goals (6.83–3.49), a dominance driven by shot quality. The gap in chance quality was the story. Carolina's shots averaged 0.103 xG; Pittsburgh's, 0.070. That's not a close game played one way or another—that's a quality gap. The Penguins held 42% of shot attempts but made little of it: 6–9 in high-danger chances against a 9–6 Carolina edge. When the Hurricanes ventured into low-danger looks, they scored anyway—three goals from spots any defense should erase, the kind of efficiency that punishes sloppy positioning.

Transition sealed it. Three goals on 28 rush attempts is blowout-level conversion. Both teams generated rebounds without converting (Pittsburgh 3 opportunities, 0 goals; Carolina 6 opportunities, 0), but the Hurricanes had already built a lead so large the loose pucks didn't matter.

Both teams underperformed their expected goals—Pittsburgh by 2.49, Carolina by 1.83—but Carolina's layered advantages prevented Pittsburgh from compounding its chances. F. Andersen (0.947 SV%, 18 on 19) controlled what mattered; S. Skinner (0.840 SV%, 21 on 25) did not.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 22
CAR
5
PIT
1

Hurricanes run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 6.8 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
6.83
PIT
3.49
66% of the chances34%

The board read CAR 5, PIT 1. The chances read CAR 6.8, PIT 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−1.8
goals above expected
CAR6.83 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT3.49 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 2.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:47CARS. AhoPP1–0
  2. P2 06:24CARN. EhlersPP2–0
  3. P2 09:15CARJ. Chatfield3–0
  4. P2 17:20CARS. JarvisPP4–0
  5. P3 14:56PITE. Chinakhov4–1
  6. P3 18:56CARM. JankowskiEN5–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
53 shots
5
Final
87 shots
PIT
34 shots
1
CAR attackPIT attack
CAR PIT Goal
53
shots · 5 in
34
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARPIT
2 / 9
3.64 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.48 xG
0 / 21
2.71 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.65 xG
3 / 36
0.49 xG
Low
0 / 30
0.37 xG

The Hurricanes buried 2 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Skinner
+2.8
PIT · 21/25
A
F. Andersen
+2.5
CAR · 18/19
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 9–5
  1. 00:47CARS. Ahopower play(S. Jarvis)1–0
2ndshots 10–6
  1. 06:24CARN. Ehlerspower play(S. Jarvis, A. Nikishin)2–0
  2. 09:15CARJ. Chatfield(E. Robinson)3–0
  3. 17:20CARS. Jarvispower play(N. Ehlers, A. Svechnikov)4–0
3rdshots 7–8
  1. 14:56PITE. Chinakhov(B. Rust, S. Crosby)4–1
  2. 18:56CARM. Jankowskiempty net(J. Blake, L. Stankoven)5–1

score reads CAR–PIT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.83
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.056
CAR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
56.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

6.83Expected goals3.49
CAR 66% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal19
9High-danger chances6
66All attempts (Corsi)50
Adjusted for score: CAR 51% · PIT 50%
Faceoffs · PIT won48%off55%neu52%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR2 / 9 · 3.64 xG
PIT1 / 6 · 1.48 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR0 / 21 · 2.71 xG
PIT0 / 14 · 1.65 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR3 / 36 · 0.49 xG
PIT0 / 30 · 0.37 xG

CAR went 0-for-21 from medium danger on 2.71 expected goals — 2.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
5 G · 6.83 xG · -1.8
PIT
1 G · 3.49 xG · -2.5
012345678

CAR finished -1.8 against expected, PIT -2.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
WRIST2/35
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN0/5
SLAP2/5
SNAP1/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/13
PIT
WRIST0/14
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/3
SNAP1/6
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/16
CAR
PIT
Off the rush
3 G on 28
3.36 xG
1 G on 20
2.22 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
1.58 xG
0 G on 3
0.40 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 2-for-35, PIT 0-for-14. CAR scored 3 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 · 18/19 · .947
+2.5
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.5+0.5
Medium0/141.6+1.6
Low0/300.4+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

S. Skinner
PIT · 21/25 · .840
+2.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/93.6+1.6
Medium0/212.7+2.7
Low3/360.5-2.5

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
53 shots
5
Final
87 shots
PIT
34 shots
1
CAR attackPIT attack
CAR PIT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, PIT 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. Jarvis
#24 · R · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 18:03 on ice
N. Ehlers
#27 · L · CAR
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 16:15 on ice
S. Aho
#20 · C · CAR
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:43 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Mar 22
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:23 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 2.8–2.6 Carolina victory with the Hurricanes at 53% probability—about as close to a pick'em as exists. The underlying play explains the split.

Carolina dominates 5v5 possession. The Hurricanes generate 56.0% expected goals against 51.0%, and drive Corsi at 60.0% to 50.0%—a territorial tilt that reflects disciplined puck movement and recovery. Possession doesn't guarantee conversion, though.

The Hurricanes run cold. Their PDO of 0.984 sits well below the league mean, signaling positive regression—they're converting at a rate suppressed relative to shot quality. Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO works the other direction, a temporary cushion that history suggests won't hold. That regression squeeze is why the model stays this tight.

A. Silovs on a back-to-back warrants attention for either a backup start or the risk of a tired starter—a variable that can shift execution by a goal in this weight class.

Jackson Blake leads Carolina's offense at 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes, posting 14 goals and 2 high-danger tallies on a 10.9% shooting percentage. Seth Jarvis provides secondary punch at 0.98 xG/60 with 17 goals and 1 HD goal at 11.9% shooting. Pittsburgh answers with Rickard Rakell, who generates 1.01 xG/60 while holding 13 goals, including 3 HD goals, at 12.1%—productive but not transcendent. Filip Hallander, who showed 1.28 xG/60, remains out after his recall from AHL conditioning and won't impact this game.

Both offenses face a conversion ceiling. Carolina records 0% hard-chance and 0% rebound-goal conversion—diagnostic of shot quality that hasn't yet translated into second-chance work. Pittsburgh mirrors the pattern, creating symmetry where both teams leave opportunities on the table in the areas playoff teams exploit. Charles Alexis Legault projects as Carolina's defensive liability, while Caleb Jones carries that role for Pittsburgh.

This is genuinely even. The model's 53% edge to Carolina reflects superior underlying play, but that's confidence, not conviction.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 53%
53%
CAR
Model favorite
53%
47%
CAR50PIT

CAR by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.8–2.6 PIT; 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 →PIT
56.0%51.0%
60.0%50.0%
2.982.66
2.312.55
2.262.45
1.952.12
0.9841.012

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CAR
6-4-0
+2 GD · 2d rest
PIT
4-3-3
-4 GD · 1d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.012
PIT 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.
  • 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
CAR
Expected in goal
B. Bussi
2 days rest.885 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PIT
Expected in goal
A. Silovs
back-to-back.840 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.

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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page