Backcheck
Recap · WPG at CAR

Hurricanes run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 11, 6:08 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
1
Home
CAR
Carolina Hurricanes
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

1.61Expected goals3.64
69% share for the better side
13Shot attempts (SOG)35
1High-danger chances6
40Corsi (all attempts)71
Score-adjusted: 38% / 62%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Carolina's 5-1 victory over Winnipeg was built on exceptional finishing. The Hurricanes scored 5 goals on just 3.64 expected goals—a 1.36-goal overperformance.

The underlying metrics explained the blowout. Carolina held 73% of shot attempts (35–13) and 69% of expected goals (3.64–1.61), winning high-danger chances 6–1.

The efficiency came from two sources. Carolina scored twice from low-danger areas and was lethal on the rush, converting 3 goals on 30 chances. T. Milic posted 30 saves on 34 shots for a 0.882 save percentage; B. Bussi went 12 for 13, posting a 0.923 save percentage and outperforming expected by 0.61 goals.

Alexander Nikishin's slap shot from the wing in the third period (19:37) marked the moment Winnipeg's deficit became insurmountable.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG0 / 1 · 0.23 xG
CAR1 / 6 · 1.33 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG1 / 11 · 1.12 xG
CAR2 / 14 · 1.55 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG0 / 28 · 0.27 xG
CAR2 / 51 · 0.76 xG

CAR went 2-for-51 from low danger on 0.76 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
1 G · 1.61 xG · -0.6
CAR
5 G · 3.64 xG · +1.4
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
T. MilicWPG
-0.4
B. BussiCAR
+0.6

WPG finished -0.6 against expected, CAR +1.4 — B. Bussi (CAR) saved 0.6 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
WRIST1/14
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/16
CAR
WRIST0/19
SNAP3/18
SLAP1/6
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/5
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/20
WPG
CAR
Off the rush
1 G on 17 · 1.54 xG
3 G on 30 · 2.27 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0 · 0.00 xG
0 G on 2 · 0.37 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-14, CAR 0-for-19. CAR scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
S. Jarvis
#24 · R · CAR
3 G · 0 A · 8 SOG · 18:59 TOI · +2
S. Gostisbehere
#4 · D · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:28 TOI · +2
A. Svechnikov
#37 · R · CAR
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:47 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • CAR scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • CAR was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 30 rush chances.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · WPG at CAR · 5:00 PM ET

The Hurricanes are the model's lean over the Jets — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 11, 6:06 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

60%
CAR
Model favorite
40%
60%
WPG50CAR

CAR by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score WPG 2.32.9 CAR; 17% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

WPG← edge
edge →CAR
48.0%5v5 xG%56.0%
49.0%Corsi%60.0%
2.34xGF / 602.98
2.55xGA / 602.31
1.90Goals for / gm2.26
2.10Goals against / gm1.95
0.998PDO — luck, not skill0.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.998 vs 0.984) says WPG has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.3–2.9 goal victory for Carolina with a 60% win probability. The Hurricanes' dominance in underlying play justifies the lean: they're operating at a 56.0% 5v5 expected goals share versus Winnipeg's 48.0%, and they're driving territorial control at 60.0% Corsi versus the Jets' 49.0%.

This edge is reinforced by recent form. Carolina is 5-3-2 over their last ten games, while Winnipeg sits at -8 goal differential over the same span. The momentum belongs to the Hurricanes.

Where PDO regression enters: Carolina's is 0.984—running cold—while Winnipeg's is 0.998. Positive regression favors the Hurricanes, widening their edge as underlying play catches up to results.

Both F. Andersen and E. Comrie are on back-to-backs, risking a backup start or fatigued starter. A tired net erases Carolina's 2.3-goal edge quickly.

Carolina's scoring depth is the fundamental problem for Winnipeg. Jackson Blake leads the game at 1.06 xG/60, with 14G 19A and 2 HD goals (10.9% shooting). Seth Jarvis (0.98 xG/60, 17G 12A, 1 HD goals, 11.9% shooting) provides secondary scoring Winnipeg cannot match. Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting) is the Jets' counterweight, but Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting) remains secondary despite his efficiency.

Colin Miller represents Winnipeg's defensive weakness; Charles Alexis Legault carries the same for Carolina. Both teams sit at 0% for high-danger and 0% for rebound goals—outliers that normalize before the season closes. The Hurricanes are the model's lean because their depth is real.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters