Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
← Sat, Oct 11 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at FLA

Panthers pull away from the Senators

FinalSat, Oct 11
OTTOttawa Senators2FLAFlorida Panthers6
The verdict · earned

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

OTT 2 · FLA 6
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:23 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

Florida's 6-2 win overstates the gap on the underlying numbers. FLA earned a 58-42 expected-goals advantage (3.74–2.74 xG), but scoring six goals on 3.74 expected represents a 2.26-goal overperformance—elite finishing, not dominance.

L. Ullmark's 0.778 save percentage (21 of 27) cost OTT dearly; he finished 2.26 goals worse than expected for his workload. S. Bobrovsky, meanwhile, was sharp: 0.929 save percentage, 0.74 goals better than expected on 28 shots faced. When one team scores six on less than four expected goals and the other team's goalie underperforms, the margin widens fast.

FLA's advantage in high-danger chances (8–4) mattered less than execution. OTT converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances at 50%—clinical finishing in a losing effort. FLA, by contrast, manufactured three goals from low-danger areas, the kind any starter would rather forget. The rush game amplified FLA's edge: 6 goals on 29 rush attempts.

Special teams tilted decisively. FLA's power play was lethal: three goals on 13 attempts (1.40 xG). Shane Pinto's wrist shot from a sharp angle (17:35, third period) kept OTT briefly engaged before FLA's depth took over.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 11
OTT
2
FLA
6

Panthers pull away from the Senators

Chances 2.7 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
2.74
FLA
3.74
42% of the chances58%

The board read OTT 2, FLA 6. The chances read OTT 2.7, FLA 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
+2.3
goals above expected
FLA3.74 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT2.74 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers scored 2.3 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 06:08FLAB. Marchand0–1
  2. P1 09:54FLAE. Rodrigues0–2
  3. P1 17:33OTTS. Pinto1–2
  4. P2 00:35FLAA. EkbladPP1–3
  5. P2 18:28FLAA. LundellPP1–4
  6. P3 05:29FLAM. SamoskevichPP1–5
  7. P3 11:14FLAS. Reinhart1–6
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
37 shots
2
Final
73 shots
FLA
36 shots
6
OTT attackFLA attack
OTT FLA Goal
37
shots · 2 in
36
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTFLA
2 / 4
1.07 xG
High danger
2 / 8
1.95 xG
0 / 10
1.13 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.31 xG
0 / 34
0.55 xG
Low
3 / 34
0.48 xG

The Panthers buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
S. Bobrovsky
+0.7
FLA · 26/28
F
L. Ullmark
−2.3
OTT · 21/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers pull away from the Senators

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 8–9
  1. 06:08FLAB. Marchand(S. Jones, G. Forsling)0–1
  2. 09:54FLAE. Rodrigues(A. Ekblad)0–2
  3. 17:33OTTS. Pinto(R. Greig)1–2
2ndshots 7–9
  1. 00:35FLAA. Ekbladpower play(B. Marchand, S. Jones)1–3
  2. 18:28FLAA. Lundellpower play(J. Petry, C. Verhaeghe)1–4
3rdshots 13–9
  1. 05:29FLAM. Samoskevichpower play(A. Lundell)1–5
  2. 11:14FLAS. Reinhart(G. Forsling)1–6
  3. 17:35OTTS. Pinto(C. Giroux)2–6

score reads OTT–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.74
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.069
FLA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
52.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.74Expected goals3.74
FLA 58% of the chance quality
28Shots on goal27
4High-danger chances8
48All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: OTT 54% · FLA 46%
Faceoffs · FLA won37%off36%neu24%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT2 / 4 · 1.07 xG
FLA2 / 8 · 1.95 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT0 / 10 · 1.13 xG
FLA1 / 12 · 1.31 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT0 / 34 · 0.55 xG
FLA3 / 34 · 0.48 xG

FLA went 3-for-34 from low danger on 0.48 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
2 G · 2.74 xG · -0.7
FLA
6 G · 3.74 xG · +2.3
01234567

OTT finished -0.7 against expected, FLA +2.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
SNAP0/17
WRIST2/10
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/11
FLA
SNAP2/20
WRIST2/3
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND1/4
SLAP0/4
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/18
OTT
FLA
Off the rush
1 G on 18
1.80 xG
6 G on 29
3.43 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3
0.61 xG
0 G on 2
0.17 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 0-for-17, FLA 2-for-20. FLA scored 6 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 · 21/27 · .778
-2.3
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/81.9-0.1
Medium1/121.3+0.3
Low3/340.5-2.5

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

S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 26/28 · .929
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/41.1-0.9
Medium0/101.1+1.1
Low0/340.6+0.6

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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
37 shots
2
Final
73 shots
FLA
36 shots
6
OTT attackFLA attack
OTT FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, FLA 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. Ekblad
#5 · D · —
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:55 on ice · +1
S. Jones
#3 · D · —
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:45 on ice · -1
G. Forsling
#42 · D · —
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 19:53 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

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

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:43 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 OTT 3.2–3.1 FLA game with the Senators at 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Ottawa owns the underlying play by a clear margin. The Senators' 54.8% 5v5 expected-goals share against 50.6% for Florida speaks to territorial control — they outshot Florida in quality and volume. The Corsi% tells a similar story: 52.6% to 51.9%. That edge in chance generation should translate, except for one problem: both teams' shooting luck is nearly identical. Ottawa's PDO sits at 0.993, Florida's at 0.989. When your luck cancels out, what matters is who finishes their chances.

Brady Tkachuk carries the Senators' offensive load. He has 11 goals and 20 assists on 1.19 expected goals per 60, with only 2 high-danger goals to his name. That gap between point total and shot quality matters: Tkachuk's 7.5% shooting rate suggests regression waiting, but also that he's outperforming his actual scoring opportunities. He will dominate ice time and create space; Florida's job is to keep him off the power play and neutralize him at even strength.

Dylan Cozens provides secondary punch. He's at 13 goals and 15 assists with a 1.00 xG/60, and just 1 high-danger goal. Like Tkachuk, Cozens has overshot his underlying chances — his 9.5% shooting rate won't hold — but he remains a dangerous secondary threat.

Florida counters with Sam Bennett, who is having the opposite conversation. Bennett has 18 goals and 19 assists but only a 0.97 expected goals per 60, with 6 high-danger goals. His 13.1% shooting rate is unsustainable, yet it's also the source of Florida's current strength. If Bennett regresses to his shot quality, the Panthers lose their punch. If Ottawa's Tkachuk regresses, Ottawa loses its depth.

Brad Marchand adds 17 goals and 9 assists at 0.93 xG/60, with 3 high-danger goals and an even more unsustainable 19.5% shooting rate. Marchand's presence means Florida can score in bunches when things break right, but it also means they're more dependent on variance than their underlying numbers suggest.

The edge is Ottawa's in the way that matters most: they're building chances in the right parts of the ice. Whether they finish them will decide this game.

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

OTT 52%
52%
OTT
Model favorite
52%
48%
OTT50FLA

OTT by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 3.2–3.1 FLA; 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 →FLA
54.8%50.6%
52.6%51.9%
3.343.22
2.753.14
3.353.00
2.993.34
0.9930.989

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.989) says OTT 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
FLA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALFLA

Shutdown Assignment: Panthers

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

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

TACTICALOTT

Shutdown Assignment: Senators

Key matchup: Neutralize Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

STRENGTHOTT

Brady Tkachuk drives the Senators offense

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

WARNINGOTT

Exploitable minutes: Nick Jensen

Nick Jensen is on ice for 2.45 xGA/60 and 36 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Nick Jensen's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 54.8% 5v5 xG vs 50.6%.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 54.8% 5v5 xG vs 50.6%.
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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page