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

F. Andersen stands tall as the Hurricanes edge the Mammoth

The verdict · earned

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

CAR 4 · UTA 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:18 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 Mammoth had no business losing this badly. They generated 4.40 expected goals against 5.78 for Carolina, yet fell 4-1—an outcome that belongs entirely to F. Andersen and Utah's execution failures. Utah underperformed their xG by 3.40 goals, the largest gap of the night.

Of Utah's 28 shots, six landed in high-danger areas. They converted none. That 0-for-6 record on the clearest opportunities explains the bulk of the deficit. Andersen saved 3.4 above expected, denying the chances that should've narrowed the margin.

The Hurricanes controlled 57% of five-on-five expected goals, but their real edge was elsewhere: 3 goals on 27 rush chances against Utah's zero. That asymmetry, combined with goaltending, turned an underlying advantage into a rout. Shot quality also favored Carolina (0.089 xG per shot vs. 0.065), and they capitalized on it better. The Hurricanes underperformed their own xG by only 1.78 goals—almost half Utah's margin.

The rebound game was negligible: Carolina 1 of 6, Utah 0 of 6. Goaltending and rush efficiency decided this one. Andersen's performance was the story of the night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 11
CAR
4
UTA
1

F. Andersen stands tall as the Hurricanes edge the Mammoth

Chances 5.8 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Hurricanes earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
5.78
UTA
4.40
57% of the chances43%

The board read CAR 4, UTA 1. The chances read CAR 5.8, UTA 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CAR
−1.8
goals above expected
CAR5.78 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA4.40 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth left 3.4 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 04:25CARA. SvechnikovPP1–0
  2. P1 13:23CARJ. Staal2–0
  3. P3 02:42UTAD. GuentherPP2–1
  4. P3 15:31CARS. Aho3–1
  5. P3 19:37CARS. WalkerEN4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
47 shots
4
Final
95 shots
UTA
48 shots
1
CAR attackUTA attack
CAR UTA Goal
47
shots · 4 in
48
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARUTA
1 / 8
3.67 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.38 xG
3 / 16
1.60 xG
Medium
1 / 23
2.57 xG
0 / 41
0.51 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.45 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
F. Andersen
+3.4
CAR · 26/27
A+
K. Vejmelka
+2.8
UTA · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

F. Andersen stands tall as the Hurricanes edge the Mammoth

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 12–8
  1. 04:25CARA. Svechnikovpower play(N. Ehlers, S. Gostisbehere)1–0
  2. 13:23CARJ. Staal(N. Ehlers, J. Martinook)2–0
2ndshots 5–7no goals
    3rdshots 12–12
    1. 02:42UTAD. Guentherpower play(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)2–1
    2. 15:31CARS. Aho(S. Gostisbehere, J. Slavin)3–1
    3. 19:37CARS. Walkerempty net(J. Martinook, J. Staal)4–1

    score reads CAR–UTA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.78
    CAR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.047
    CAR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    48.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.78Expected goals4.40
    CAR 57% of the chance quality
    29Shots on goal27
    8High-danger chances6
    65All attempts (Corsi)68
    Adjusted for score: CAR 43% · UTA 57%
    Faceoffs · UTA won46%off33%neu43%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CAR1 / 8 · 3.67 xG
    UTA0 / 6 · 1.38 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CAR3 / 16 · 1.60 xG
    UTA1 / 23 · 2.57 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CAR0 / 41 · 0.51 xG
    UTA0 / 39 · 0.45 xG

    CAR went 1-for-8 from high danger on 3.67 expected goals — 2.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CAR
    4 G · 5.78 xG · -1.8
    UTA
    1 G · 4.40 xG · -3.4
    01234567

    CAR finished -1.8 against expected, UTA -3.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CAR
    SNAP0/23
    WRIST2/9
    BACKHAND1/7
    SLAP0/5
    TIP IN1/3
    OTHER0/18
    UTA
    SNAP0/21
    WRIST0/10
    BACKHAND0/6
    SLAP1/5
    TIP IN0/6
    OTHER0/20
    CAR
    UTA
    Off the rush
    3 G on 27
    2.95 xG
    0 G on 28
    2.18 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 6
    0.47 xG
    0 G on 6
    1.02 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: CAR went 0-for-23, UTA 0-for-21. 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
    F. Andersen
    CAR · 26/27 · .963
    +3.4
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.4+1.4
    Medium1/232.6+1.6
    Low0/390.5+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

    K. Vejmelka
    UTA · 25/28 · .893
    +2.8
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/83.7+2.7
    Medium3/161.6-1.4
    Low0/410.5+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

    95 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CAR
    47 shots
    4
    Final
    95 shots
    UTA
    48 shots
    1
    CAR attackUTA attack
    CAR UTA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR left, UTA 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
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:10 on ice · +1
    J. Staal
    #11 · C · CAR
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:06 on ice · +2
    J. Martinook
    #48 · L · CAR
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 17:48 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Apr 11
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:17 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 can't pick a winner because there isn't one to pick. Carolina and Utah project to 2.7 and 2.6 goals respectively, giving the Hurricanes exactly 52% win probability—close enough to a coin flip that pregame analysis borders on futile.

    What makes this interesting is the gap between what should happen and what might happen. Carolina dominates the underlying play: 56.0% 5v5 expected goals and 60.0% Corsi territory control. Utah doesn't look remotely competitive in those margins (52.0% xG, 53.0% Corsi). On a neutral night, the Hurricanes should dictate everything.

    But Carolina is running ice-cold. Their 0.984 PDO means they're getting fewer bounces than their play merits—the definition of due for regression. Utah sits at 1.003, right on normal. One team is leaving goals on the table; the other isn't. That's the edge.

    Goaltending adds a layer of chaos. Both K. Vejmelka and F. Andersen are on back-to-backs. You're either getting starters running on fumes or backups you haven't scouted properly. Either way, expect sloppier execution than the underlying play suggests.

    Dylan Guenther has been Utah's most reliable producer. He's at 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes, carrying 28 goals and 15 assists. That shooting percentage (16.8%) is unsustainable, which means Utah's depth is doing real work to keep pace. When Guenther cools—and he will—the Mammoth lose their primary outlet. Daniil But is a secondary option here, though he's likely out after 16 days off the ice.

    For Carolina, Jackson Blake runs 1.06 xG/60 with 14 goals, 19 assists, and a 10.9% shooting rate that matches his talent. Seth Jarvis sits just below (0.98 xG/60, 17 goals) and carries an 11.9% clip. Blake is the more dangerous player on a per-shot basis; Jarvis is simply more prolific.

    The defensive vulnerabilities cancel out. Charles Alexis Legault is Carolina's weak link; Maveric Lamoureux occupies that role for Utah. Neither team generates meaningful high-danger or rebound scoring—0% rates across the board, which suggests both backlines have discipline or both teams are playing too loose in the attacking zone.

    Strip away the narrative and the only real signal is this: Carolina should win, is capable of winning, and remains a coin flip because their shot luck is running backwards. That's the entire thesis. A Hurricanes win wouldn't surprise; neither would a Utah upset. The model is right to call it even.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CAR 52%
    52%
    CAR
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    CAR50UTA

    CAR by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CAR 2.7–2.6 UTA; 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 →UTA
    56.0%52.0%
    60.0%53.0%
    2.982.64
    2.312.39
    2.262.26
    1.951.99
    0.9841.003

    CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.003) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CAR
    7-3-0
    +13 GD · 1d rest
    UTA
    7-3-0
    +11 GD · 1d rest
    0.984
    CAR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.003
    UTA 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.
    • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • F. Andersen 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.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CAR
    Expected in goal
    F. Andersen
    back-to-back.920 last start
    Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 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.

    UTA
    Expected in goal
    K. Vejmelka
    back-to-back.967 last start
    Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 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.

    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
    UTA
    Dylan Guenther28G 15A
    1.02 xG/60 · 3 HD · 16.8% sh
    Daniil But2G 2A
    1.01 xG/60 · 1 HD · 5.6% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next