Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater

Breakdown · OTT at TBL

Senators hold off the Lightning

FinalThu, Oct 9

OTTOttawa Senators5 TBLTampa Bay Lightning4

The verdict · earned

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

OTT 5 · TBL 4

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:11 PMxG: 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

OTT's 5–4 win was powered by clinical finishing in a game where both teams massively beat their expected scoring. OTT overperformed their xG by 1.64 goals while TBL overperformed by 1.40—two teams that decided the game through superior execution, not chance creation.

The underlying picture initially favors Ottawa. OTT controlled 56% of 5v5 expected goals (3.36–2.60), while TBL held only a 42% share of shot attempts (25–34 on goal). Neither team found separation in the high-danger zone; both landed 4 chances there.

The split between expected and actual widened at the crease. L. Ullmark (OTT) allowed 1.40 goals more than expected on 21/25 saves, while A. Vasilevskiy (TBL) allowed 0.64 more than expected on 29/33—both goalies faltering, though Vasilevskiy's 0.879 SV% kept the deficit manageable.

OTT's finishing was elite. They converted 3 of 4 high-danger chances (75%) and scored twice from low-danger areas where Vasilevskiy was beaten. The Senators crashed the net effectively, generating 3 rebound opportunities and converting one. TBL answered with a dominant power play—3 goals on 11 shots (1.00 xG)—and was lethal off the rush (4 goals on 26 chances versus OTT's 2 on 25). But Tampa's special-teams dominance couldn't offset a team that controlled possession metrics and buried opportunities in the dangerous areas.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 9

OTT

TBL

Senators hold off the Lightning

Chances 3.4 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

OTT

3.36

TBL

2.60

56% of the chances44%

The board read OTT 5, TBL 4. The chances read OTT 3.4, TBL 2.6.

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

Luck check

OTT

+1.6

goals above expected

OTT3.36 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

TBL2.60 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

The Senators scored 1.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 05:35TBLO. BjorkstrandPP0–1
P1 07:00TBLB. Point0–2
P1 10:18OTTD. CozensPP1–2
P1 14:46TBLN. KucherovPP1–3
P2 00:42OTTA. Zub2–3
P2 15:09OTTS. Pinto3–3
P3 18:13OTTS. Pinto4–3

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

OTT

46 shots

Final

84 shots

TBL

38 shots

OTT TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

OTTTBL

3 / 4

1.12 xG

High danger

1 / 4

0.82 xG

0 / 13

1.55 xG

Medium

2 / 13

1.25 xG

2 / 50

0.69 xG

Low

1 / 32

0.54 xG

The Senators buried 3 of 4 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A. Vasilevskiy

−0.6

TBL · 29/33

D-

L. Ullmark

−1.4

OTT · 21/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Senators hold off the Lightning

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 13–14

05:35TBLO. Bjorkstrandpower play(J. Guentzel, B. Point)0–1
07:00TBLB. Point(J. Guentzel, D. Raddysh)0–2
10:18OTTD. Cozenspower play(B. Tkachuk, J. Sanderson)1–2
14:46TBLN. Kucherovpower play(V. Hedman, B. Point)1–3

2ndshots 13–7

00:42OTTA. Zub(B. Tkachuk, T. Stützle)2–3
15:09OTTS. Pinto(A. Zub, B. Tkachuk)3–3

3rdshots 8–4

18:13OTTS. Pinto(J. Sanderson)4–3
19:12OTTC. Girouxempty net(S. Pinto, A. Zub)5–3
19:46TBLN. Kucherovpower play(D. Raddysh, V. Hedman)5–4

score reads OTT–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.36

OTT chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

0.993

OTT puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

57.8%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.36Expected goals2.60

OTT 56% of the chance quality

34Shots on goal25

4High-danger chances4

67All attempts (Corsi)49

Adjusted for score: OTT 61% · TBL 39%

Faceoffs · TBL won41%off44%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

OTT3 / 4 · 1.12 xG

TBL1 / 4 · 0.82 xG

Medium dangermid-range

OTT0 / 13 · 1.55 xG

TBL2 / 13 · 1.25 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

OTT2 / 50 · 0.69 xG

TBL1 / 32 · 0.54 xG

OTT went 3-for-4 from high danger on 1.12 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

OTT

5 G · 3.36 xG · +1.6

TBL

4 G · 2.60 xG · +1.4

0123456

OTT finished +1.6 against expected, TBL +1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

OTT

WRIST3/32

SNAP1/8

SLAP1/4

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/0

OTHER0/21

TBL

WRIST3/25

SNAP1/3

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/2

OTHER0/11

OTT

TBL

Off the rush

2 G on 25

1.88 xG

4 G on 26

2.39 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.52 xG

0 G on 2

0.09 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 3-for-32, TBL 3-for-25. TBL 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

L. Ullmark

OTT · 21/25 · .840

-1.4

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.8-0.2

Medium2/131.3-0.8

Low1/320.5-0.5

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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 29/33 · .879

-0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/41.1-1.9

Medium0/131.6+1.6

Low2/500.7-1.3

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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

OTT

46 shots

Final

84 shots

TBL

38 shots

OTT TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, TBL 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

A. Zub

#2 · D · —

1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 20:44 on ice · +4

B. Point

#21 · C · —

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:40 on ice · -2

B. Tkachuk

#7 · L · —

0 G · 3 A · 5 SOG · 19:24 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:16 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 a 3.1–3.2 game in Tampa's favor, with the Lightning at 51% win probability. This is as close to a coin flip as NHL picks get.

Brady Tkachuk is the fulcrum for Ottawa. He drives the Senators offense at 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes with 11 goals and 20 assists, including 2 high-danger chances. Brandon Hagel carries the Lightning's load with 23 goals, 26 assists, 1.10 xG/60, and 2 high-danger opportunities of his own.

The underlying possession metrics are tighter than the Vegas line suggests. Ottawa has controlled 54.8% of expected goals in 5-on-5 play this season, edging Tampa at 53.7%. In shot volume—the Corsi measure—Ottawa leads 52.6% to 53.0%. What breaks the symmetry is luck. The Lightning's PDO of 1.019 means they've outperformed their underlying metrics and should expect regression. Ottawa's PDO of 0.993 signals the opposite: variance favors them going forward.

The secondary attackers matter equally. Dylan Cozens operates at 1.00 xG/60 for the Senators, has 13 goals and 15 assists with 1 high-danger goal, and converts at 9.5%. Anthony Cirelli for Tampa runs a sharper profile: 0.95 xG/60, 15 goals and 18 assists across 5 high-danger goals, and a 17.0% shooting rate.

Defensively, both rosters leave gaps. Nick Jensen is Ottawa's liability. Victor Hedman anchors Tampa's back end but cannot alone seal all seams.

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 51%

51%

TBL

Model favorite

49%

51%

OTT50TBL

TBL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 3.1–3.2 TBL; 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

OTT← edge

edge →TBL

54.8%53.7%

52.6%53.0%

3.343.38

2.752.92

3.353.49

2.992.79

0.9931.019

TBL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 1.019) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

OTT

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

TBL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.993

OTT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.019

TBL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALTBL

Shutdown Assignment: Lightning

Key matchup: Neutralize Brady Tkachuk (11G, 1.19 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

TACTICALOTT

Shutdown Assignment: Senators

Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Hagel (23G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

STRENGTHOTT

Brady Tkachuk drives the Senators offense

Brady Tkachuk: 11G 20A, 1.19 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.

STRENGTHTBL

Brandon Hagel drives the Lightning offense

Brandon Hagel: 23G 26A, 1.10 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

OTT

Brady Tkachuk11G 20A

1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh

Dylan Cozens13G 15A

1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh

TBL

Brandon Hagel23G 26A

1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 15.8% sh

Anthony Cirelli15G 18A

0.95 xG/60 · 5 HD · 17.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page