Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater

Breakdown · FLA at CAR

Panthers shut out the Hurricanes, 1-0

Final / OTTue, Sep 29

FLAFlorida Panthers1 CARCarolina Hurricanes0

The verdict · coin flip

The Panthers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

FLA 1 · CAR 0

◆ By the ModelOct 4, 5:31 AMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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

G. Forsling scored in overtime to give the Panthers a 1-0 shutout over the Hurricanes. J. Markstrom was flawless in net, turning back every chance Carolina's offense created.

But the underlying numbers tell a different story. The Hurricanes generated more high-danger chances—6 to Florida's 4—yet couldn't beat J. Markstrom, who saved 2.61 goals above expected. Expected goals nearly split even at 2.61–2.65, a sign the scoreboard exaggerated Florida's dominance.

The disparity came down to finishing. Carolina shot at a 0.070 expected-goals rate per shot versus Florida's 0.052, evidence they were hunting dangerous looks. They got 6 high-danger chances. They converted zero.

J. Markstrom was the engine of Florida's win. He allowed nothing on high danger—6 stops on 6 high-danger shots. B. Bussi answered the challenge with a 1.65-goal save above expected. Markstrom turned away the one that mattered: G. Forsling's 55-foot slap shot at 04:55 of overtime, a play the model gave only a 3% chance.

The transition game told the same story. The Hurricanes fired 19 rush shots worth 2.15 expected goals. Zero goals resulted. Florida's defense held serve when the play was most dangerous.

Special teams offered neither side an edge. Power plays failed for both clubs.

Three Stars: G. Forsling (1 goal in 22:40), C. Verhaeghe (1 assist in 18:58), and S. Jones (two-way depth in 28:59).

Final: FLA 1 – CAR 0 (OT)

The goals

FLA 1–0, 04:55 of overtime. G. Forsling, slap shot from 55 feet, a 3% chance by the model, past B. Bussi. Assists: C. Verhaeghe. Win probability moved 50 points.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Sep 29

FLA

CAR

Panthers shut out the Hurricanes, 1-0

Chances 2.6 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Panthers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

2.65

CAR

2.61

50% of the chances50%

The board read FLA 1, CAR 0. The chances read FLA 2.6, CAR 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

FLA

−1.6

goals above expected

FLA2.65 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

CAR2.61 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Hurricanes left 2.6 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

The swing

+50

win-probability points

50% → 100% for FLA

CAR 100%the game, start to finish

FLA 100%P1 · P2 · P3

FLAOT 04:55

G. Forsling makes it 1–0.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games

Every goal, in order

OT 04:55FLAG. Forsling3%1–0

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

FLA

31 shots

Final

55 shots

CAR

24 shots

FLA CAR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 0 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLACAR

0 / 4

0.96 xG

High danger

0 / 6

1.21 xG

0 / 12

1.50 xG

Medium

0 / 11

1.22 xG

1 / 35

0.19 xG

Low

0 / 20

0.17 xG

The Hurricanes went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A+

J. Markstrom

+2.6

FLA · 15/15 · 64:55

Best save · a 23% chance, snap from 28 ft · P2 11:29

B. Bussi

+1.6

CAR · 19/20 · 64:55

Best save · a 32% chance, backhand from 7 ft · P2 08:06

Best skater on the ice

A+

FLA

C. Verhaeghe

C · impact 1.16

18:58

Ice time

0–1

G – A

0.13

Own xG

89%

xG share

Impact · top 4

C. Verhaeghe1.2A+

J. Blake1.0A+

N. Ehlers0.8A+

S. Aho0.9A

Report card

FLACAR

OffenseB-B-

DefenseC-C-

TransitionCC

Special teamsFF

GoaltendingA+A-

DisciplineB-C-

LuckBD+

Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown

Why it went the way it went

Why FLA won

01J. Markstrom stole it
02Dangerous off the rush
03J. Markstrom was perfect on high danger

Why CAR lost

01Cold finishing night
02Rush defense leaked all night
03Wasted the best looks

Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Panthers shut out the Hurricanes, 1-0

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 / 12 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 6–3no goals

2ndshots 8–7no goals

3rdshots 5–4no goals

OTshots 1–1

04:55FLAG. Forsling(C. Verhaeghe)1–0
Slap shot from 55 feet, a 3% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past B. Bussi. Win probability moved 50 points.

score reads FLA–CAR

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.65

FLA chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.6

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.020

FLA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

58.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.65Expected goals2.61

FLA 50% of the chance quality

20Shots on goal15

4High-danger chances6

51All attempts (Corsi)37

Adjusted for score: FLA 58% · CAR 42%

Faceoffs · CAR won61%off44%neu64%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA0 / 4 · 0.96 xG

CAR0 / 6 · 1.21 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA0 / 12 · 1.50 xG

CAR0 / 11 · 1.22 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA1 / 35 · 0.19 xG

CAR0 / 20 · 0.17 xG

FLA went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.50 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

1 G · 2.65 xG · -1.6

CAR

0 G · 2.61 xG · -2.6

0123

FLA finished -1.6 against expected, CAR -2.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

SNAP0/9

WRIST0/14

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP1/3

TIP IN0/3

OTHER0/20

CAR

SNAP0/13

WRIST0/3

BACKHAND0/4

SLAP0/3

TIP IN0/1

OTHER0/13

FLA

CAR

Off the rush

0 G on 18

2.15 xG

0 G on 19

2.15 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.01 xG

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-9, CAR 0-for-13.

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

FLA · 15/15 · 1.000

started · 64:55 · win

+2.6

saved above expected

A+

the night

Attempts faced: 24
Avg chance faced: 10.9%
Stopped vs expected: 1.000 vs 0.891
Rebounds allowed: 0

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.2+1.2

Medium0/111.2+1.2

Low0/70.2+0.2

Shorthanded0/121.6+1.6

Tips & deflections0/10.0+0.0

The save

23% chance stopped, a snap from 28 ft · P2 11:29

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 · 19/20 · .950

started · 64:55 · OT loss

+1.6

saved above expected

the night

Attempts faced: 30
Avg chance faced: 8.8%
Stopped vs expected: 0.967 vs 0.912
Rebounds allowed: 1

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/41.0+1.0

Medium0/121.5+1.5

Low1/140.2-0.8

Shorthanded0/70.7+0.7

Tips & deflections0/30.4+0.4

The save

32% chance stopped, a backhand from 7 ft · P2 08:06

The one to have back

3% chance went in, a slap from 55 ft · P4 04:55

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

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: C. Verhaeghe (FLA), 18:58 of ice, 0-1, 89% of the expected goals while he was out.

FLA18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
C. VerhaegheC	18:58	0-1	1	0.13	89	0/0	1.16	3.68	A+
S. ReinhartC	20:57	0-0	2	0.20	70	1/0	0.69	1.99	A
M. TkachukL	19:01	0-0	2	0.29	70	1/0	0.63	2.00	A
B. TkachukL	16:33	0-0	1	0.36	81	0/1	0.45	1.64	B
N. MikkolaD	21:32	0-0	4	0.31	49	0/0	0.48	1.33	B
A. BarkovC	20:32	0-0	1	0.11	65	0/0	0.43	1.25	B
S. JonesD	28:59	0-0	1	0.06	64	0/0	0.45	0.94	B
S. VilmanisL	11:23	0-0	0	0.01	59	0/0	0.24	1.28	B
R. GudasD	10:45	0-0	0	0.00	98	0/0	0.23	1.31	B
D. KulikovD	11:46	0-0	0	0.00	98	0/1	0.24	1.25	B
S. BennettC	19:08	0-0	1	0.14	52	1/0	0.28	0.88	C
A. LundellC	19:02	0-0	3	0.52	43	0/0	0.27	0.83	C
L. EllerC	11:34	0-0	1	0.01	29	1/0	0.10	0.53	C
G. ForslingD	22:40	1-0	2	0.03	10	0/1	0.11	0.30	C
E. LuostarinenC	13:58	0-0	1	0.37	40	0/0	0.00	0.00	C
B. ImamaL	6:03	0-0	0	0.00	100	1/2	-0.14	-1.44	F
A. EkbladD	20:17	0-0	0	0.11	30	0/0	-0.26	-0.76	F
G. HathawayR	9:37	0-0	0	0.00	28	1/2	-0.28	-1.75	F

CAR18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
J. BlakeR	21:38	0-0	2	0.52	67	1/0	0.99	2.76	A+
N. EhlersL	19:24	0-0	2	0.34	75	0/0	0.85	2.62	A+
S. AhoC	20:56	0-0	4	0.50	76	0/2	0.85	2.45	A
A. SvechnikovR	16:21	0-0	2	0.52	72	0/1	0.64	2.33	A
S. GostisbehereD	19:09	0-0	1	0.25	54	2/0	0.59	1.84	A
T. HallL	15:27	0-0	1	0.20	51	1/1	0.14	0.56	C
K. MillerD	25:15	0-0	0	0.00	64	0/1	0.14	0.34	C
J. SlavinD	22:32	0-0	1	0.10	37	0/0	0.01	0.01	C
N. DeslauriersL	5:01	0-0	0	0.00	50	1/1	0.00	0.00	D
W. CarrierL	6:46	0-0	0	0.00	3	1/0	-0.01	-0.04	D
S. WalkerD	19:10	0-0	1	0.02	24	0/1	-0.01	-0.03	D
E. RobinsonL	13:00	0-0	0	0.04	41	0/0	-0.07	-0.31	D
J. ChatfieldD	19:12	0-0	0	0.00	40	0/0	-0.13	-0.39	D
L. StankovenC	19:54	0-0	0	0.00	43	0/0	-0.13	-0.39	D
M. JankowskiL	13:13	0-0	0	0.10	16	0/0	-0.13	-0.59	D
J. StaalC	17:17	0-0	0	0.00	19	0/0	-0.23	-0.80	D
J. MartinookL	13:50	0-0	0	0.00	4	0/0	-0.26	-1.11	F
C. LegaultD	12:40	0-0	1	0.02	3	0/0	-0.29	-1.39	F

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, FLA: U. Balinskis. Scratched, CAR: M. Reilly, C. Primeau, J. Kotkaniemi. Referees Chris Rooney and Jake Brenk; linesmen Libor Suchanek and Ryan Daisy.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionFLACAR

Offense

▸Basis

FLA Created 2.65 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.96 xG) and 18 rush shots (2.15 xG).

CAR Created 2.61 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 6 high-danger shots (1.21 xG) and 19 rush shots (2.15 xG).

B-

Defense

▸Basis

FLA Allowed 2.61 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 6 high-danger shots (1.21 xG) and 19 rush shots (2.15 xG).

CAR Allowed 2.65 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.96 xG) and 18 rush shots (2.15 xG).

C-

Transition

▸Basis

FLA Rush shots 18–19, rush xG 2.15–2.15 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

CAR Rush shots 19–18, rush xG 2.15–2.15 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

Special teams

▸Basis

FLA 0-for-7 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.70 PP xG.

CAR 0-for-6 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 1.64 PP xG.

Goaltending

▸Basis

FLA +2.61 goals saved above expected on 15 shots against.

CAR +1.65 goals saved above expected on 20 shots against.

A+

100

A-

Discipline

▸Basis

FLA Took 7 penalties for 17 PIM vs 8 for 19 on the other side.

CAR Took 8 penalties for 19 PIM vs 7 for 17 on the other side.

B-

C-

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

FLA Finishing -1.65 goals vs xG plus +2.61 GSAx of save luck = +0.96 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

CAR Finishing -2.61 goals vs xG plus +1.65 GSAx of save luck = -0.96 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

D+

Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately

What the model flagged

STRENGTHFLA

J. Markstrom stole it

J. Markstrom stopped 15 of 15 (1.000) — +2.61 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

LUCKCAR

Cold finishing night

Scored 0 on 2.61 xG — -2.61 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

LUCKCAR

Wasted the best looks

0-for-6 on high-danger chances worth 1.21 xG — that conversion rate won't stay at zero.

WARNINGFLA

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 19 rush shots worth 2.15 xG (0 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

WARNINGCAR

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 18 rush shots worth 2.15 xG (0 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

WARNINGFLA

Power play came up empty

0-for-7 with the man advantage on 0.70 PP xG.

Rework PP entries and get a body to the net-front.

55 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

31 shots

Final

55 shots

CAR

24 shots

FLA CAR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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

G. Forsling

#42 · D · FLA

1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:40 on ice · +1

C. Verhaeghe

#23 · C · FLA

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:58 on ice · +1

S. Jones

#3 · D · FLA

0 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 28:59 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Sep 29

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelOct 2, 5:38 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 get the model's edge, but Florida's play is the more threatening force. The Panthers control the board with real territorial advantage, though their success could cool as regression sets in.

The Panthers post 52.8% expected goals to the Hurricanes' 49.6%, a meaningful edge in the underlying play. They drive 57.9% of shot attempts, which means they're dictating where play happens and sustaining more offensive looks. But their PDO of 1.024 means they're scoring at rates above what the workload warrants — a hot run that will cool.

In the high slot, Florida has scored 3 goals on 6 attempts (50%). Denying that lane is critical for Carolina.

A. Schmid carries -0.7 goals saved above expected and an 87.5% save percentage in one appearance. B. Bussi posts +1.5 goals saved above expected and a 95.0% save percentage in one appearance.

The Hurricanes' edge relies on Florida's luck normalizing. As long as it hasn't, the Panthers' territorial mastery makes them a live threat.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 57%

57%

CAR

Model favorite

43%

57%

FLA50CAR

CAR by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score FLA 3.0–3.5 CAR; 16% 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

FLA← edge

edge →CAR

52.8%49.6%

57.9%36.4%

3.402.61

3.032.65

2.000.00

2.001.00

1.0241.000

FLA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.000) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

FLA

0-0-0

+0 GD · 2d rest

CAR

0-0-0

+0 GD · 2d rest

1.024

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.000

CAR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICAL

The Panthers own the underlying play

The Panthers own the underlying play — 52.8% 5v5 xG vs 49.6%.

TACTICAL

The Panthers drive Corsi at 57.9%

The Panthers drive Corsi at 57.9% — expect territorial tilt.

WARNINGFLA

Regression watch: Panthers

The Panthers' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

TACTICALFLA

Hot Zone: Panthers

Their most productive scoring zone over last 5 games.

Most goals from high-slot (3G on 6 shots, 50%) — deny that lane

Where the edges live

The Panthers own the underlying play — 52.8% 5v5 xG vs 49.6%.
The Panthers drive Corsi at 57.9% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Panthers' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Panthers own the underlying play — 52.8% 5v5 xG vs 49.6%.
The Panthers drive Corsi at 57.9% — expect territorial tilt.
Goalie matchup: A. Schmid (-0.7 GSAx in 1 GP, 87.5% SV) vs B. Bussi (+1.5 GSAx in 1 GP, 95.0% SV).
The Panthers' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

FLA

Expected in goal

A. Schmid

2 days rest.909 last start

Backup Jacob Markstrom · +2.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CAR

Expected in goal

B. Bussi

2 days rest1.000 last start

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.

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page