Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Carolina Hurricanes sweater
← Tue, Apr 7 · the slate
Breakdown · BOS at CAR

Hurricanes run the Bruins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTTue, Apr 7
BOSBoston Bruins5CARCarolina Hurricanes6
The verdict · earned

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

BOS 5 · CAR 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:45 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 controlled 73% of 5v5 expected goals (5.51–2.07) yet needed overtime to beat a Bruins team that overperformed its xG by 2.93 goals. The 6-5 final belies Carolina's dominance: 66% shot-attempt share (41–21) and an 11–1 advantage in high-danger chances.

Boston's luck was extraordinary. The Bruins scored 5 goals on just 2.07 expected goals while Carolina scored 6 on 5.51. J. Korpisalo, spelling J. Swayman in relief, stopped 1.29 goals above expected. Swayman gave up 1.77 more than expected despite below-average workload.

Carolina dominated through shot quality. Their attempts averaged 0.078 expected goals each, nearly double Boston's 0.046. The Hurricanes capitalized: 4 goals on 34 rush chances and twice from low-danger spots. Boston matched that rush-goal rate on 16 chances—elite finishing that masked the structural advantage.

Jaccob Slavin ended it at 01:13 of overtime with a snap shot from the doorstep. M. Geekie (BOS) led the three stars with 3 goals in 17:37. C. McAvoy (BOS) assisted twice in 26:29. J. Blake (CAR) added 2 assists in 20:12.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Apr 7
BOS
5
CAR
6

Hurricanes run the Bruins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.1 – 5.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
BOS
2.07
CAR
5.51
27% of the chances73%

The board read BOS 5, CAR 6. The chances read BOS 2.1, CAR 5.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
+0.5
goals above expected
CAR5.51 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS2.07 expected · 5 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 04:40BOSH. Lindholm1–0
  2. P1 10:04CARA. Svechnikov1–1
  3. P1 11:38CARK. Miller1–2
  4. P1 13:36BOSM. Geekie2–2
  5. P1 17:25BOSM. Geekie3–2
  6. P2 05:17CARL. StankovenPP3–3
  7. P2 07:20CARW. Carrier3–4
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BOS
33 shots
5
Final
92 shots
CAR
59 shots
6
BOS attackCAR attack
BOS CAR Goal
33
shots · 5 in
59
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BOSCAR
1 / 1
0.26 xG
High danger
1 / 11
2.67 xG
3 / 11
1.23 xG
Medium
3 / 20
2.28 xG
1 / 33
0.58 xG
Low
2 / 40
0.56 xG

High-danger looks: BOS 1 of 1, CAR 1 of 11.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Korpisalo
+4.5
BOS · 16/17
B
J. Swayman
+0.5
BOS · 19/24
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Hurricanes run the Bruins 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 8–13
  1. 04:40BOSH. Lindholm(P. Zacha, V. Arvidsson)1–0
  2. 10:04CARA. Svechnikov(A. Nikishin, S. Walker)1–1
  3. 11:38CARK. Miller(J. Staal)1–2
  4. 13:36BOSM. Geekie(D. Pastrnak, E. Lindholm)2–2
  5. 17:25BOSM. Geekie(D. Pastrnak, N. Zadorov)3–2
2ndshots 9–15
  1. 05:17CARL. Stankovenpower play(T. Hall, J. Blake)3–3
  2. 07:20CARW. Carrier(J. Martinook)3–4
  3. 08:33CART. Hall(J. Blake, S. Walker)3–5
  4. 18:50BOSM. Geekie(N. Zadorov, C. McAvoy)4–5
3rdshots 4–12
  1. 12:33BOSP. Zacha(C. McAvoy, V. Arvidsson)5–5
OTshots 0–1
  1. 01:13CARJ. Slavin(S. Aho, A. Svechnikov)5–6

score reads BOS–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.51
CAR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
0.973
CAR puck luck
Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
61.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.07Expected goals5.51
CAR 73% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal41
1High-danger chances11
45All attempts (Corsi)71
Adjusted for score: BOS 40% · CAR 60%
Faceoffs · CAR won52%off41%neu39%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BOS1 / 1 · 0.26 xG
CAR1 / 11 · 2.67 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BOS3 / 11 · 1.23 xG
CAR3 / 20 · 2.28 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BOS1 / 33 · 0.58 xG
CAR2 / 40 · 0.56 xG

BOS went 3-for-11 from medium danger on 1.23 expected goals — 1.8 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BOS
5 G · 2.07 xG · +2.9
CAR
6 G · 5.51 xG · +0.5
01234567

BOS finished +2.9 against expected, CAR +0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BOS
SNAP3/13
WRIST1/11
SLAP0/2
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/12
CAR
SNAP4/37
WRIST1/9
SLAP1/7
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/4
OTHER0/12
BOS
CAR
Off the rush
4 G on 16
1.03 xG
4 G on 34
4.05 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3
0.47 xG
0 G on 4
0.39 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BOS went 3-for-13, CAR 4-for-37. BOS scored 4 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. Swayman
BOS · 19/24 · .792
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/112.7+1.7
Medium3/202.3-0.7
Low2/400.6-1.4

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

J. Korpisalo
BOS · 16/17 · .941
+4.5
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/112.7+1.7
Medium3/202.3-0.7
Low2/400.6-1.4

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

B. Bussi
CAR · 16/21 · .762
-2.9
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/10.3-0.7
Medium3/111.2-1.8
Low1/330.6-0.4

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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
BOS
33 shots
5
Final
92 shots
CAR
59 shots
6
BOS attackCAR attack
BOS CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — BOS 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
M. Geekie
#39 · C · BOS
3 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 17:37 on ice · +1
C. McAvoy
#73 · D · BOS
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 26:29 on ice · -1
J. Blake
#53 · R · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:12 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Apr 7
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:53 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 60% win probability for Carolina. The Hurricanes own the underlying play: 56.0% 5v5 xG to Boston's 47.0%, and they drive territorial control at 60.0% Corsi to the Bruins' 49.0%. This is a matchup where the better team has the metrics to prove it.

Carolina's PDO sits at 0.984 — they've been running cold and are due for positive regression. Boston, conversely, is at 1.023, running hot with regression waiting in the margins. That gap matters. A Bruins team that's outperformed its underlying numbers by luck has a ceiling; a Hurricanes team that hasn't yet cashed in on quality chances has a floor. The model's 2.4 to 3.0 projection lands accordingly.

Viktor Arvidsson carries Boston's offensive weight at 1.04 xG/60, backed by 18 goals, 24 assists, and a 13.0% shooting rate that feels sustainable — he's generating 2 high-danger goals, which tracks. Tanner Jeannot operates at a lower volume (0.75 xG/60, 6 goals, 14 assists) but sits at 8.3% shooting, suggesting room for regression there. Neither player elevates a team trailing in shot quality.

Jackson Blake runs the highest xG/60 on this sheet at 1.06, with 14 goals, 19 assists, and 2 high-danger goals backing the quality. Seth Jarvis follows at 0.98 xG/60 with 17 goals, 12 assists, and 1 high-danger goal — his 11.9% shooting rate reflects both talent and luck. Blake's ceiling is higher; Jarvis's floor is more solid.

Carolina's advantage flows from what the numbers show: the Hurricanes generate better chances at higher volume. Boston will need to neutralize Blake's threat while forcing the Hurricanes into low-efficiency opportunities. That's feasible. It's also unlikely given the 56.0% xG% gap — a margin that swallows most defensive schemes.

This is a game where the better team's advantage is measurable and real. The model knows it. So does the sheet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 60%
60%
CAR
Model favorite
40%
60%
BOS50CAR

CAR by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score BOS 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
BOS← edge
edge →CAR
47.0%56.0%
49.0%60.0%
2.392.98
2.672.31
2.222.26
1.821.95
1.0230.984

CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.023 vs 0.984) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
BOS
6-3-1
+9 GD · 2d rest
CAR
7-3-0
+9 GD · 2d rest
1.023
BOS 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 47.0%.
  • 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 Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • 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
BOS
Expected in goal
J. Korpisalo
2 days rest.935 last start
Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CAR
Expected in goal
F. Andersen
2 days rest.833 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
BOS
Viktor Arvidsson18G 24A
1.04 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
Tanner Jeannot6G 14A
0.75 xG/60 · 2 HD · 8.3% 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