Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
Breakdown · NJD at CAR

Hurricanes run the Devils off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

NJD 2 · CAR 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:34 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

J. Markstrom played a strong game for New Jersey—1.3 goals above expected on 29 saves (0.879 SV%)—and still gave up five in a 5-2 loss. The Hurricanes' dominance was complete: 74% of 5v5 expected goals (5.28–1.90), 64% of shot attempts (34–19). Those metrics translate into precisely this result.

The Devils' few dangerous chances came at 0.045 xG per shot—quality wasn't the problem. Carolina's was 0.073 per shot, a decisively higher rate that explains the gap. High-danger chances finished 8–1. Once you're generating that much better looks on top of higher volume, the game is decided at 5v5.

The rush compounded matters. Carolina scored five of 36 rush attempts, lethality born of relentless offensive pressure. New Jersey scored twice on 24—irrelevant against that volume. Efficiency without enough chances is background noise.

B. Bussi made 17 of 19 saves, a quiet job behind a team controlling the game's pace and space. When a roster owns this much of the play, goaltending becomes invisible. Markstrom couldn't bridge what was never really a gap—just an absence, one team lacking the chances to stay close.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 28
NJD
2
CAR
5

Hurricanes run the Devils off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.9 – 5.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NJD
1.90
CAR
5.28
26% of the chances74%

The board read NJD 2, CAR 5. The chances read NJD 1.9, CAR 5.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−0.3
goals above expected
CAR5.28 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD1.90 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 17:06NJDT. Meier1–0
  2. P2 10:10CARN. EhlersPP1–1
  3. P2 13:48CARJ. Blake1–2
  4. P2 15:13CARJ. Staal1–3
  5. P3 15:25CARS. Gostisbehere1–4
  6. P3 17:40CARS. JarvisEN1–5
  7. P3 19:36NJDE. Dadonov2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NJD
30 shots
2
Final
84 shots
CAR
54 shots
5
NJD attackCAR attack
NJD CAR Goal
30
shots · 2 in
54
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NJDCAR
0 / 1
0.28 xG
High danger
1 / 8
2.74 xG
2 / 16
1.37 xG
Medium
4 / 17
1.84 xG
0 / 25
0.25 xG
Low
0 / 47
0.70 xG

High-danger looks: NJD 0 of 1, CAR 1 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Markstrom
+1.3
NJD · 29/33
C
B. Bussi
−0.1
CAR · 17/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Devils 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 6–8
  1. 17:06NJDT. Meier(D. Mercer, N. Hischier)1–0
2ndshots 5–15
  1. 10:10CARN. Ehlerspower play(A. Nikishin, T. Hall)1–1
  2. 13:48CARJ. Blake(T. Hall, S. Gostisbehere)1–2
  3. 15:13CARJ. Staal(N. Ehlers, J. Martinook)1–3
3rdshots 8–11
  1. 15:25CARS. Gostisbehere1–4
  2. 17:40CARS. Jarvisempty net(S. Walker, S. Aho)1–5
  3. 19:36NJDE. Dadonov(J. Kovacevic, B. Dillon)2–5

score reads NJD–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.28
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.022
CAR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
63.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.90Expected goals5.28
CAR 74% of the chance quality
19Shots on goal34
1High-danger chances8
42All attempts (Corsi)72
Adjusted for score: NJD 39% · CAR 61%
Faceoffs · CAR won78%off42%neu30%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD0 / 1 · 0.28 xG
CAR1 / 8 · 2.74 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD2 / 16 · 1.37 xG
CAR4 / 17 · 1.84 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD0 / 25 · 0.25 xG
CAR0 / 47 · 0.70 xG

CAR went 4-for-17 from medium danger on 1.84 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
2 G · 1.90 xG · +0.1
CAR
5 G · 5.28 xG · -0.3
0123456

NJD finished +0.1 against expected, CAR -0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
SNAP0/9
WRIST2/14
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/1
SLAP0/2
BAT0/0
OTHER0/12
CAR
SNAP2/23
WRIST2/16
TIP IN1/6
BACKHAND0/5
SLAP0/3
BAT0/1
OTHER0/18
NJD
CAR
Off the rush
2 G on 24
1.64 xG
5 G on 36
4.53 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.13 xG
0 G on 2
0.25 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: NJD went 0-for-9, CAR 2-for-23. CAR scored 5 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
J. Markstrom
NJD · 29/33 · .879
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/82.7+1.7
Medium4/171.8-2.2
Low0/470.7+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

B. Bussi
CAR · 17/19 · .895
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.3+0.3
Medium2/161.4-0.6
Low0/250.3+0.3

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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NJD
30 shots
2
Final
84 shots
CAR
54 shots
5
NJD attackCAR attack
NJD CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD 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
S. Gostisbehere
#4 · D · CAR
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:42 on ice · +1
N. Ehlers
#27 · L · CAR
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:10 on ice
T. Hall
#71 · L · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 14:25 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 28
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:15 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 Hurricanes own the shot model at 58% win probability. The model projects a 2.4 to 2.9 goal spread in their favor. The scheduling edge — four days of rest versus New Jersey's one — compounds it.

The underlying play tilts sharply toward the Hurricanes. Their 5v5 xG sits at 56.0% to New Jersey's 50.0%. Corsi follows: 60.0% to 51.0%. This is territorial dominance, not a close contest.

Both teams are running cold on PDO and due for upward regression. The Hurricanes sit at 0.984, the Devils at 0.971. When both regress upward on luck, the Hurricanes' superior underlying play should widen the gap — that's why the model likes them.

Watch J. Markstrom on the back-to-back. If the Hurricanes start fresh goaltending, the Devils' offense has an opening. If he plays tired, New Jersey's defense — particularly Johnathan Kovacevic — needs to tighten.

For the Devils, Timo Meier is the offensive anchor: 1.08 xG/60, 13 goals, 6.7% shooting, 3 high-danger chances. Jack Hughes sits at 0.88 xG/60 with 18 goals on 11.5% shooting — fewer chances, but clinical.

The Hurricanes counter with Jackson Blake at 1.06 xG/60, 14 goals and 19 assists, efficient in high-danger play with 2 goals there. Seth Jarvis runs 0.98 xG/60 with 17 goals on 11.9% shooting. Multiple scorers running hot despite the team's overall PDO sitting cold.

Charles Alexis Legault is the Hurricanes' defensive vulnerability. That's the Devils' only real angle back into this.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 58%
58%
CAR
Model favorite
42%
58%
NJD50CAR

CAR by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score NJD 2.4–2.9 CAR; 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
NJD← edge
edge →CAR
50.0%56.0%
51.0%60.0%
2.452.98
2.502.31
1.662.26
2.231.95
0.9710.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 vs 0.984) says CAR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NJD
7-3-0
+9 GD · 1d rest
CAR
6-4-0
+2 GD · 4d rest
0.971
NJD 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 50.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Markstrom 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.
  • The Hurricanes have 3 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NJD
Expected in goal
J. Markstrom
back-to-back.882 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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
F. Andersen
4 days rest.778 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% 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