Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
Breakdown · CAR at MTL

Canadiens pull away from the Hurricanes

The verdict · earned

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

CAR 2 · MTL 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:38 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

Montreal's 5-2 win conceals a lopsided affair: they recorded just 19 shots against 43 (31% of attempts), yet dominated almost everything else.

The expected-goals picture confirmed it. Montreal held 56% (5.72–4.49), built on surgical shot quality—0.127 xG per attempt versus Carolina's 0.052. They were out-creating, not outshooting.

High-danger chances went 11–6 Montreal. Carolina's finish was grim: they underperformed their 4.49 xG by 2.49 goals, going 0-for-6 on dangerous looks. Montreal underperformed theirs by just 0.72.

The rush game was lopsided in conversion. Montreal scored 3 on 17 chances; Carolina managed 2 on 42. Crashing the net told the same story—Montreal generated four rebound opportunities (1 converted), Carolina created five (0 converted).

J. Dobes made 41 saves on 43 (0.953 SV%, +2.49 above expected). The turning point came early: a snap shot from Jake Evans (P3, 19:00). By the time the three stars posted—J. Slafkovský (1G, 1A in 19:30), C. Caufield (1G, 1A in 18:33), I. Demidov (1G, 1A in 11:58)—the verdict was done. F. Andersen stopped 1.72 goals above expected, but no goalie saves a team that generates nothing dangerous.

Three Stars

  • J. Slafkovský (MTL) — 1G, 1A
  • C. Caufield (MTL) — 1G, 1A
  • I. Demidov (MTL) — 1G, 1A
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 24
CAR
2
MTL
5

Canadiens pull away from the Hurricanes

Chances 4.5 – 5.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
4.49
MTL
5.72
44% of the chances56%

The board read CAR 2, MTL 5. The chances read CAR 4.5, MTL 5.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
−0.7
goals above expected
MTL5.72 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR4.49 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes 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 02:36CARN. EhlersPP1–0
  2. P1 07:09CARJ. Staal2–0
  3. P1 12:11MTLO. Kapanen2–1
  4. P2 05:49MTLC. Caufield2–2
  5. P2 09:19MTLJ. Slafkovský2–3
  6. P3 13:53MTLI. Demidov2–4
  7. P3 19:00MTLJ. EvansEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
63 shots
2
Final
95 shots
MTL
32 shots
5
CAR attackMTL attack
CAR MTL Goal
63
shots · 2 in
32
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARMTL
0 / 6
1.49 xG
High danger
3 / 11
4.58 xG
1 / 20
2.21 xG
Medium
1 / 8
0.84 xG
1 / 61
0.80 xG
Low
1 / 26
0.30 xG

The Hurricanes went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Dobes
+2.5
MTL · 41/43
A
F. Andersen
+1.7
CAR · 14/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens pull away from the Hurricanes

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 16–4
  1. 02:36CARN. Ehlerspower play(A. Svechnikov, S. Jarvis)1–0
  2. 07:09CARJ. Staal2–0
  3. 12:11MTLO. Kapanen(J. Struble, I. Demidov)2–1
2ndshots 10–11
  1. 05:49MTLC. Caufield(N. Suzuki, J. Slafkovský)2–2
  2. 09:19MTLJ. Slafkovský(C. Caufield, N. Dobson)2–3
3rdshots 17–4
  1. 13:53MTLI. Demidov2–4
  2. 19:00MTLJ. Evansempty net(A. Carrier)2–5

score reads CAR–MTL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.72
MTL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.7
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.088
MTL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
34.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.49Expected goals5.72
MTL 56% of the chance quality
43Shots on goal19
6High-danger chances11
87All attempts (Corsi)45
Adjusted for score: CAR 67% · MTL 34%
Faceoffs · MTL won33%off21%neu78%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR0 / 6 · 1.49 xG
MTL3 / 11 · 4.58 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR1 / 20 · 2.21 xG
MTL1 / 8 · 0.84 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR1 / 61 · 0.80 xG
MTL1 / 26 · 0.30 xG

MTL went 3-for-11 from high danger on 4.58 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
2 G · 4.49 xG · -2.5
MTL
5 G · 5.72 xG · -0.7
01234567

CAR finished -2.5 against expected, MTL -0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
SNAP1/39
SLAP0/10
TIP IN0/6
WRIST1/5
BACKHAND0/3
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/24
MTL
SNAP2/23
SLAP0/3
TIP IN1/2
WRIST1/2
BACKHAND0/0
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/13
CAR
MTL
Off the rush
2 G on 42
3.05 xG
3 G on 17
2.51 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.82 xG
1 G on 4
0.82 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-39, MTL 2-for-23. MTL 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 · 14/18 · .778
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/114.6+1.6
Medium1/80.8-0.2
Low1/260.3-0.7

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

J. Dobes
MTL · 41/43 · .953
+2.5
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.5+1.5
Medium1/202.2+1.2
Low1/610.8-0.2

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

95 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
63 shots
2
Final
95 shots
MTL
32 shots
5
CAR attackMTL attack
CAR MTL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, MTL 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
J. Slafkovský
#20 · L · MTL
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:30 on ice · +2
C. Caufield
#13 · R · MTL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:33 on ice · +2
I. Demidov
#93 · R · MTL
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 11:58 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 24
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:35 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 2.8–2.5 Hurricanes victory with Carolina at 55% win probability. The gap reflects one team's underlying dominance and a second team running unsustainably hot.

Carolina owns the underlying play. The Hurricanes' 56.0% expected goals share versus Montreal's 48.0% documents the offensive difference; the 60.0% Corsi advantage makes the territorial tilt visible. In expected terms, this is a clear edge for the road team.

Then comes the regression story. Montreal's PDO sits at 1.018—running hot, expect some regression. Carolina's PDO is 0.984—running cold, due for positive regression. That's a two-front correction favoring the Hurricanes.

Jackson Blake anchors Carolina's offense at 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes on 14 goals and 19 assists, with 2 high-danger goals and a 10.9% shooting rate. Seth Jarvis complements at 0.98 xG/60 with 17 goals and 12 assists on an 11.9% clip.

Montreal's answer is Cole Caufield, operating at 0.97 xG/60 on 33 goals and 16 assists with a 20.0% shooting rate. Oliver Kapanen adds 0.83 xG/60 on 19 goals and 12 assists, with 4 high-danger goals at 17.8% shooting.

Carolina's defensive weak link is Charles Alexis Legault. Montreal's is Mike Matheson.

The underlying edge for Carolina is material, and the PDO dynamics add another layer. The model's 55% Carolina lean reflects both.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 55%
55%
CAR
Model favorite
55%
45%
CAR50MTL

CAR by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CAR 2.8–2.5 MTL; 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 →MTL
56.0%48.0%
60.0%49.0%
2.982.41
2.312.62
2.262.24
1.951.96
0.9841.018

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CAR
7-3-0
+7 GD · 2d rest
MTL
5-4-1
+1 GD · 3d rest
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
MTL 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 48.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • 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 48.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CAR
Expected in goal
F. Andersen
2 days rest.947 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MTL
Expected in goal
J. Fowler
3 days rest.864 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next