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

Hurricanes run the Islanders off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

NYI 3 · CAR 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:19 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 4-3, but they should have won by more—they held 4.81 expected goals to the Islanders' 2.57, a 65–35 domination that I. Sorokin's goaltending nearly reversed. The Hurricanes controlled 71% of shot attempts (40–16) and dominated high-danger chances 8–4, yet left 0.81 goals on the table through underperformance. Sorokin finished +0.81 against his expected save percentage, an extraordinary margin that nearly stole the game.

The Islanders' limited offense was dangerous when it mattered. They generated higher-quality chances—0.080 xG per shot to the Hurricanes' 0.059—which meant their third line stayed lethal off the rush. They scored 3 goals on just 16 rush attempts, a conversion rate the Hurricanes couldn't match despite converting 3 of 35 attempts. S. Jarvis's two goals and K. Miller's two assists drove Carolina's dominance. M. Schaefer's assist on Anders Lee's slot tip-in was the Islanders' most dangerous sequence.

The underlying numbers told a clear story: a Hurricanes rout constrained entirely by Sorokin's overperformance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 4
NYI
3
CAR
4

Hurricanes run the Islanders off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.6 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NYI
2.57
CAR
4.81
35% of the chances65%

The board read NYI 3, CAR 4. The chances read NYI 2.6, CAR 4.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−0.8
goals above expected
CAR4.81 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NYI2.57 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 05:17NYIM. Gatcomb1–0
  2. P1 11:07CARS. Jarvis1–1
  3. P2 02:15NYIM. Shabanov2–1
  4. P2 11:15CARJ. Blake2–2
  5. P2 16:17CARS. AhoSH2–3
  6. P3 00:24CARS. Jarvis2–4
  7. P3 18:23NYIA. LeePP3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NYI
25 shots
3
Final
86 shots
CAR
61 shots
4
NYI attackCAR attack
NYI CAR Goal
25
shots · 3 in
61
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NYICAR
1 / 4
0.87 xG
High danger
1 / 8
2.09 xG
2 / 11
1.44 xG
Medium
2 / 22
1.99 xG
0 / 17
0.26 xG
Low
1 / 52
0.73 xG

High-danger looks: NYI 1 of 4, CAR 1 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
I. Sorokin
+0.8
NYI · 36/40
D
B. Bussi
−0.4
CAR · 13/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Islanders 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 4–13
  1. 05:17NYIM. Gatcomb(S. Holmstrom, J. Pageau)1–0
  2. 11:07CARS. Jarvis(S. Walker, K. Miller)1–1
2ndshots 2–18
  1. 02:15NYIM. Shabanov(C. Ritchie, S. Mayfield)2–1
  2. 11:15CARJ. Blake(L. Stankoven, T. Hall)2–2
  3. 16:17CARS. Ahoshorthanded(S. Jarvis, J. Slavin)2–3
3rdshots 10–9
  1. 00:24CARS. Jarvis(A. Svechnikov, K. Miller)2–4
  2. 18:23NYIA. Leepower play(M. Schaefer, M. Barzal)3–4

score reads NYI–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.81
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
0.955
CAR puck luck
Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
71.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.57Expected goals4.81
CAR 65% of the chance quality
16Shots on goal40
4High-danger chances8
32All attempts (Corsi)82
Adjusted for score: NYI 30% · CAR 70%
Faceoffs · CAR won73%off46%neu28%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NYI1 / 4 · 0.87 xG
CAR1 / 8 · 2.09 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NYI2 / 11 · 1.44 xG
CAR2 / 22 · 1.99 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NYI0 / 17 · 0.26 xG
CAR1 / 52 · 0.73 xG

CAR went 1-for-8 from high danger on 2.09 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NYI
3 G · 2.57 xG · +0.4
CAR
4 G · 4.81 xG · -0.8
0123456

NYI finished +0.4 against expected, CAR -0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NYI
SNAP0/10
WRIST1/12
SLAP0/0
BACKHAND0/0
TIP IN1/1
DEFLECTED1/2
OTHER0/7
CAR
SNAP1/27
WRIST3/20
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/21
NYI
CAR
Off the rush
3 G on 16
2.04 xG
3 G on 35
2.73 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.29 xG
0 G on 4
0.54 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: NYI went 0-for-10, CAR 1-for-27. NYI 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
I. Sorokin
NYI · 36/40 · .900
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/82.1+1.1
Medium2/222.0-0.0
Low1/520.7-0.3

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

B. Bussi
CAR · 13/16 · .812
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium2/111.4-0.6
Low0/170.3+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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NYI
25 shots
3
Final
86 shots
CAR
61 shots
4
NYI attackCAR attack
NYI CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NYI 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. Jarvis
#24 · R · CAR
2 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 17:26 on ice · +3
K. Miller
#19 · D · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:35 on ice · +1
M. Schaefer
#48 · D · NYI
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 27:11 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Apr 4
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:17 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 2.4–3.0 Carolina win with the Hurricanes at 60% probability — a clear lean, backed by cleaner underlying metrics.

Carolina's edge lives in possession and shot quality. The Hurricanes are generating 56.0% of 5v5 expected goals against an Islanders team stuck at 48.0%. That gap extends to territory: Carolina is controlling 60.0% of Corsi, meaning the Hurricanes will dictate where this game is played.

The wildcard is PDO regression. Carolina is sitting at 0.984 — running colder than depth and luck should allow. A team driving shots at this volume typically converts more than the Hurricanes have; if that regresses back to neutral or better, the expected-goals edge widens further. The Islanders, by contrast, sit at 0.993 — still in their natural range.

Who do the Hurricanes need to contain? Anders Lee is New York's closest thing to a finisher: 1.20 expected goals per 60 minutes, with 9 goals and 2 high-danger chances, shooting at just 6.4% — evidence he's running cold himself. Bo Horvat offers a secondary threat at 0.87 xG/60, though his 12.8% shooting rate suggests he's converting chances at an unsustainable clip (18 goals from 10 assists).

Carolina's own firepower centers on Jackson Blake (1.06 xG/60, 14 goals, 2 high-danger goals) and Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17 goals, 1 high-danger goal). Both are generating good volume; Jarvis's 11.9% shot efficiency and Blake's 10.9% put them in healthier territory than Lee's outlier cold streak.

New York's vulnerability sits with Alexander Romanov on the back end, while Carolina's defensive concern is Charles Alexis Legault. Neither pairing is game-breaking, but in a matchup defined by shot volume, puck management matters.

The Islanders will scrape for loose change — territory is the long game — but the model is right to favor Carolina. The Hurricanes have the possession, the shot profile, and the regression edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 60%
59%
CAR
Model favorite
41%
59%
NYI50CAR

CAR by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score NYI 2.4–3.0 CAR; 17% 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
NYI← edge
edge →CAR
48.0%56.0%
49.0%60.0%
2.482.98
2.692.31
1.782.26
1.941.95
0.9930.984

CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.984) says NYI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
NYI
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
CAR
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.993
NYI 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 48.0%.
  • 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 48.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
NYI
Anders Lee9G 20A
1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh
Bo Horvat18G 10A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% 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