Backcheck
Recap · PIT at CAR

Hurricanes edge the Penguins in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 12, 7:41 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
PIT
Pittsburgh Penguins
5
Home
CAR
Carolina Hurricanes
6
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.16Expected goals4.79
54% share for the better side
35Shot attempts (SOG)44
7High-danger chances7
52Corsi (all attempts)82
Score-adjusted: 40% / 60%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Pittsburgh accumulated superior shot quality — 0.080 expected goals per shot versus Carolina's 0.058 — yet the Hurricanes won 6-5 in overtime. Underlying play suggested a tighter contest: the Hurricanes' edge in expected goals was just 4.79–4.16, or 54–46 percent, despite controlling 56 percent of shot attempts. Both teams vastly overshot their xG projections — the Hurricanes by 1.21 goals, Pittsburgh by 0.84 — a sign that variance, not dominance, decided the night.

Sean Walker's slap shot from the high slot at 04:31 of overtime ended it.

High-danger chances split evenly at 7–7. Pittsburgh was sharper off the rush, with 5 goals on 27 attempts, while Carolina scored 6 times on 45 chances. Both teams generated rebound opportunities (7 and 6, respectively) but failed to convert.

S. Skinner (PIT) faced 44 shots, saved 38 (0.864 SV%), allowing 1.21 goals above expectation. F. Andersen (CAR) made 30 saves on 35 shots (0.857 SV%), yielding 0.84 goals beyond the model.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT1 / 7 · 1.49 xG
CAR2 / 7 · 1.58 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT3 / 18 · 2.18 xG
CAR3 / 22 · 2.20 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT1 / 27 · 0.49 xG
CAR1 / 53 · 1.00 xG

PIT went 3-for-18 from medium danger on 2.18 expected goals — 0.8 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
5 G · 4.16 xG · +0.8
CAR
6 G · 4.79 xG · +1.2
01234567
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
S. SkinnerPIT
-1.2
F. AndersenCAR
-0.8

PIT finished +0.8 against expected, CAR +1.2 — S. Skinner (PIT) allowed 1.2 more goals than expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST0/18
SNAP2/7
SLAP1/7
BACKHAND2/6
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/10
CAR
WRIST1/22
SNAP2/19
SLAP1/11
BACKHAND2/7
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED0/2
BAT0/0
OTHER0/17
PIT
CAR
Off the rush
5 G on 27 · 2.62 xG
6 G on 45 · 3.60 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6 · 0.87 xG
0 G on 7 · 0.97 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 0-for-18, CAR 1-for-22. CAR scored 6 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
E. Karlsson
#65 · D · PIT
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 24:02 TOI
J. Blake
#53 · R · CAR
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:06 TOI · +1
N. Ehlers
#27 · L · CAR
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 17:50 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • S. Skinner (PIT) gave up 1.2 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • PIT had the higher quality looks — 0.080 xG/shot vs 0.058.
  • CAR was lethal off the rush — 6 goals on 45 rush chances.
  • PIT was lethal off the rush — 5 goals on 27 rush chances.
  • CAR created 7 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • PIT created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · PIT at CAR · 7:00 PM ET

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

By the ModelJul 12, 7:39 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

57%
CAR
Model favorite
43%
57%
PIT50CAR

CAR by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.52.9 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

PIT← edge
edge →CAR
51.0%5v5 xG%56.0%
50.0%Corsi%60.0%
2.66xGF / 602.98
2.55xGA / 602.31
2.45Goals for / gm2.26
2.12Goals against / gm1.95
1.012PDO — luck, not skill0.984

CAR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.012 vs 0.984) says PIT has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Carolina projects to win 57% of the time, with a model score of 2.5–2.9 goals in their favor. The edge flows from underlying dominance: the Hurricanes control 56.0% 5v5 xG against Pittsburgh's 51.0%, and drive territorial tilt at 60.0% Corsi compared to Pittsburgh's 50.0%. This isn't a close possession battle.

Positive PDO regression heavily favors Carolina. The Hurricanes' 0.984 PDO reveals they're running cold on the conversion side—a situation that typically corrects itself. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO suggests they've benefited from fortunate bounces. Expect the Hurricanes to even out in Carolina's direction.

Goaltending complications add another layer. B. Bussi and A. Silovs are both on back-to-backs, making tired starters or backup appearances likely. Fatigue in net can swing a tight matchup.

Pittsburgh's injury report cuts deeper. Filip Hallander, a 1.28 xG/60 threat, has been recalled from his conditioning loan with the WBSPenguins for further evaluation and testing—he's likely unavailable. This forces Pittsburgh to rely more heavily on Rickard Rakell, whose 12.1% shooting rate and 13 goals suggest he's been efficient.

Carolina's advantage in skilled forwards intensifies without Hallander in the mix. Jackson Blake combines 14 goals with 1.06 xG/60, while Seth Jarvis adds 17 goals and 0.98 xG/60. The Hurricanes have the model, the metrics, and the healthy roster.

Players to Watch

  • Rickard Rakell (PIT) — 13G 13A, 1.01 xG/60, 12.1% shooting
  • Jackson Blake (CAR) — 14G 19A, 1.06 xG/60, 10.9% shooting
  • Seth Jarvis (CAR) — 17G 12A, 0.98 xG/60, 11.9% shooting
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% 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