Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Thu, Apr 2 · the slate
Breakdown · CBJ at CAR

Hurricanes pull away from the Blue Jackets

FinalThu, Apr 2
CBJColumbus Blue Jackets1CARCarolina Hurricanes5
The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 1 · CAR 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:03 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

The Hurricanes won 5-1, but they and the Blue Jackets generated the same number of high-danger chances (3-3). That parity masked the real story: Carolina scored three rush goals on 22 chances, where superior execution — not superior scoring chances — drove the margin.

The underlying metrics showed controlled dominance. Carolina held 59% of expected goals (2.51-1.75) and 68% of shot attempts (21-10). These numbers justified the win, but not the magnitude. The xG model pegged the Hurricanes at 2.51 goals; they scored five, a 2.49-goal overperformance that suggests fortune as much as skill.

E. Merzlikins absorbed the brunt of that luck. Facing 21 shots, he made 16 stops for a 0.762 save percentage that landed 2.49 goals below expected — not a collapse, but a situation where Carolina's finishing efficiency erased the margin. F. Andersen needed just nine saves on ten shots, exceeding xG by 0.75.

The victory was decisive, but the 3-3 high-danger parity reveals it came from transition play and execution, not from owning the dangerous areas.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 2
CBJ
1
CAR
5

Hurricanes pull away from the Blue Jackets

Chances 1.8 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
1.75
CAR
2.51
41% of the chances59%

The board read CBJ 1, CAR 5. The chances read CBJ 1.8, CAR 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+2.5
goals above expected
CAR2.51 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ1.75 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes scored 2.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:27CARL. Stankoven0–1
  2. P1 08:52CARL. Stankoven0–2
  3. P1 12:50CARA. NikishinSH0–3
  4. P2 11:24CBJD. Mateychuk1–3
  5. P2 11:37CARJ. Martinook1–4
  6. P3 06:44CARA. SvechnikovPP1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
25 shots
1
Final
62 shots
CAR
37 shots
5
CBJ attackCAR attack
CBJ CAR Goal
25
shots · 1 in
37
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJCAR
1 / 3
0.73 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.75 xG
0 / 6
0.76 xG
Medium
4 / 13
1.28 xG
0 / 37
0.26 xG
Low
1 / 36
0.47 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 1 of 3, CAR 0 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
F. Andersen
+0.8
CAR · 9/10
F
E. Merzlikins
−2.5
CBJ · 16/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes pull away from the Blue Jackets

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 2–9
  1. 02:27CARL. Stankoven(K. Miller, T. Hall)0–1
  2. 08:52CARL. Stankoven(T. Hall, J. Blake)0–2
  3. 12:50CARA. Nikishinshorthanded(S. Jarvis, S. Aho)0–3
2ndshots 4–6
  1. 11:24CBJD. Mateychuk(B. Jenner, I. Lundeström)1–3
  2. 11:37CARJ. Martinook(J. Staal)1–4
3rdshots 4–6
  1. 06:44CARA. Svechnikovpower play(S. Gostisbehere, S. Aho)1–5

score reads CBJ–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.51
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.074
CAR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
53.1%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.75Expected goals2.51
CAR 59% of the chance quality
10Shots on goal21
3High-danger chances3
46All attempts (Corsi)52
Adjusted for score: CBJ 54% · CAR 46%
Faceoffs · CAR won64%off59%neu60%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CBJ1 / 3 · 0.73 xG
CAR0 / 3 · 0.75 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CBJ0 / 6 · 0.76 xG
CAR4 / 13 · 1.28 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CBJ0 / 37 · 0.26 xG
CAR1 / 36 · 0.47 xG

CAR went 4-for-13 from medium danger on 1.28 expected goals — 2.7 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CBJ
1 G · 1.75 xG · -0.8
CAR
5 G · 2.51 xG · +2.5
0123456

CBJ finished -0.8 against expected, CAR +2.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CBJ
SNAP1/12
WRIST0/10
SLAP0/2
TIP IN0/0
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/21
CAR
SNAP4/19
WRIST0/5
SLAP0/5
TIP IN1/6
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/15
CBJ
CAR
Off the rush
1 G on 14
1.48 xG
3 G on 22
2.11 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.18 xG
1 G on 2
0.17 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CBJ went 1-for-12, CAR 4-for-19. 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
E. Merzlikins
CBJ · 16/21 · .762
-2.5
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.8+0.8
Medium4/131.3-2.7
Low1/360.5-0.5

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

F. Andersen
CAR · 9/10 · .900
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.7-0.3
Medium0/60.8+0.8
Low0/370.3+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

62 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CBJ
25 shots
1
Final
62 shots
CAR
37 shots
5
CBJ attackCAR attack
CBJ CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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. Aho
#20 · C · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:30 on ice · +1
L. Stankoven
#22 · C · CAR
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 15:09 on ice · +2
T. Hall
#71 · L · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 13:50 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:01 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 Carolina at 56% win probability in a game it expects to see 2.5–2.8 goals.

Carolina's edge lives in sustained pressure. The Hurricanes generate 56.0% of expected goals at 5v5 against Columbus's 52.0%. They're dominating territorial battle at 60.0% Corsi, pinning Columbus in their own zone. This isn't variance; it's design.

The PDO regression angle amplifies the advantage. Carolina's on-ice shooting plus save percentage sits at 0.984—running cold. Columbus sits at 1.003, slightly elevated. When Carolina reverts to mean, its underlying edge compounds.

For Blue Jackets backers, Boone Jenner anchors the offense at 0.98 xG per 60 with 11 goals and 21 assists—dangerous volume. Mathieu Olivier (12 goals, 13.3% shooting) is a secondary threat, though injury concerns linger after leaving early recently. Conor Garland is Columbus's defensive weak link.

Jackson Blake leads Carolina at 1.06 xG per 60 with 14 goals and 19 assists on 10.9% efficiency. Seth Jarvis matches Jenner's rate at 0.98 xG per 60 but has converted better: 17 goals on 11.9% shooting. Charles Alexis Legault is Carolina's defensive liability.

The matchup flows Carolina's way: better shot quality, territorial control, and positive regression incoming. Columbus's slight PDO edge won't hold when the model is this clear.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 56%
56%
CAR
Model favorite
44%
56%
CBJ50CAR

CAR by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CBJ 2.5–2.8 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
CBJ← edge
edge →CAR
52.0%56.0%
51.0%60.0%
2.632.98
2.432.31
2.122.26
1.981.95
1.0030.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.984) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
CBJ
5-4-1
+5 GD · 2d rest
CAR
6-4-0
+3 GD · 2d rest
1.003
CBJ 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 52.0%.
  • 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 52.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
CBJ
Expected in goal
J. Greaves
2 days rest.875 last start
Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CAR
Expected in goal
B. Bussi
2 days rest.920 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
CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% 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