Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Mon, Oct 13 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at BOS

Lightning hold off the Bruins

FinalMon, Oct 13
TBLTampa Bay Lightning4BOSBoston Bruins3
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 4 · BOS 3
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:33 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

Tampa Bay won 4–3, but the game told two different stories on the scoreboard and the underlying play. The Bruins dominated shot volume—59% of attempts—yet had no answer for Tampa's shot quality. The Lightning generated 57% of expected goals (4.36–3.31 xG) by being ruthlessly efficient: 0.081 xG per shot versus Boston's 0.049. In hockey, that gap compounds fast.

The chasm opened widest in the danger zone. Tampa converted 40% of its high-danger chances (2 of 5), while Boston created exactly zero goals from its two high-danger looks. J. Korpisalo's performance in Boston's net (19 of 23 saves, 0.826 SV%) made the deficit worse—he gave up more than his share. J. Johansson (30 of 33, 0.909) kept Tampa ahead when it mattered, turning away the volume Boston threw at him.

Both teams were equally lethal on the rush: Tampa scored 3 times on 25 chances, Boston 3 times on 26. The difference was everything else. Boston crashed the net hard, generating 5 rebound opportunities and converting none. Tampa created 6 rebound chances and buried one—the kind of marginal edge that decides close games. Morgan Geekie's wrist shot from the top of the circles (period 2, 11:35) was the tipping point, but it was merely the moment the underlying play finally matched the scoreboard.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 13
TBL
4
BOS
3

Lightning hold off the Bruins

Chances 4.4 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
4.36
BOS
3.31
57% of the chances43%

The board read TBL 4, BOS 3. The chances read TBL 4.4, BOS 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−0.4
goals above expected
TBL4.36 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS3.31 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:09TBLA. Cirelli1–0
  2. P1 13:16TBLA. Cirelli2–0
  3. P2 00:39TBLY. Gourde3–0
  4. P2 01:09BOSC. Mittelstadt3–1
  5. P2 03:37TBLP. Holmberg4–1
  6. P2 05:31BOSJ. Harris4–2
  7. P2 11:35BOSM. Geekie4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
42 shots
4
Final
95 shots
BOS
53 shots
3
TBL attackBOS attack
TBL BOS Goal
42
shots · 4 in
53
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLBOS
2 / 5
1.85 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.63 xG
2 / 14
1.95 xG
Medium
2 / 19
1.89 xG
0 / 35
0.56 xG
Low
1 / 47
0.80 xG

The Lightning buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
J. Korpisalo
+0.4
BOS · 19/23
B
J. Johansson
+0.3
TBL · 30/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning hold off the Bruins

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 9–11
  1. 01:09TBLA. Cirelli(J. Guentzel, G. Goncalves)1–0
  2. 13:16TBLA. Cirelli(J. Guentzel, G. Goncalves)2–0
2ndshots 9–12
  1. 00:39TBLY. Gourde(P. Holmberg, J. Moser)3–0
  2. 01:09BOSC. Mittelstadt(V. Arvidsson, P. Zacha)3–1
  3. 03:37TBLP. Holmberg(O. Bjorkstrand, M. Crozier)4–1
  4. 05:31BOSJ. Harris(D. Pastrnak)4–2
  5. 11:35BOSM. Geekie(P. Zacha)4–3
3rdshots 5–10no goals

    score reads TBL–BOS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.36
    TBL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.4
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.030
    TBL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    44.3%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.36Expected goals3.31
    TBL 57% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal33
    5High-danger chances2
    54All attempts (Corsi)68
    Adjusted for score: TBL 39% · BOS 61%
    Faceoffs · BOS won75%off64%neu61%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TBL2 / 5 · 1.85 xG
    BOS0 / 2 · 0.63 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TBL2 / 14 · 1.95 xG
    BOS2 / 19 · 1.89 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TBL0 / 35 · 0.56 xG
    BOS1 / 47 · 0.80 xG

    BOS went 0-for-2 from high danger on 0.63 expected goals — 0.6 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TBL
    4 G · 4.36 xG · -0.4
    BOS
    3 G · 3.31 xG · -0.3
    012345

    TBL finished -0.4 against expected, BOS -0.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TBL
    WRIST2/27
    SNAP1/7
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN1/2
    BACKHAND0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/12
    BOS
    WRIST2/28
    SNAP1/7
    SLAP0/8
    TIP IN0/8
    BACKHAND0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/15
    TBL
    BOS
    Off the rush
    3 G on 25
    2.29 xG
    3 G on 26
    2.18 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 6
    1.03 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.40 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-27, BOS 2-for-28. TBL scored 3 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
    J. Johansson
    TBL · 30/33 · .909
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.6+0.6
    Medium2/191.9-0.1
    Low1/470.8-0.2

    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

    J. Korpisalo
    BOS · 19/23 · .826
    +0.4
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/51.9-0.1
    Medium2/141.9-0.1
    Low0/350.6+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

    95 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TBL
    42 shots
    4
    Final
    95 shots
    BOS
    53 shots
    3
    TBL attackBOS attack
    TBL BOS Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, BOS 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. Cirelli
    #71 · C · —
    2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:43 on ice · +1
    P. Zacha
    #18 · C · —
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:34 on ice · +3
    J. Guentzel
    #59 · C · —
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:59 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Oct 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Model draft
    ◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:12 AMRaw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

    The model projects a TBL 3.4 - 3.1 BOS game with the Lightning at 54% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Keys to the game

    • Brandon Hagel drives the Lightning offense. Brandon Hagel: 23G 26A, 1.10 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals.
    • Shutdown Assignment: Bruins. Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Hagel (23G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
    • Shutdown Assignment: Lightning. Key matchup: Neutralize Viktor Arvidsson (18G, 1.04 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    Season 5v5 Numbers

    MetricTBLBOS
    xG%53.7%46.7%
    Corsi%53.0%49.0%
    PDO1.0191.022

    Rates from 2025-26 — the 2026-27 sample isn't live yet.

    Where the Edges Live

    • The Lightning own the underlying play — 53.7% 5v5 xG vs 46.7%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

    Regression Watch

    • The Bruins' PDO is 1.022 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

    Players to Watch

    TBL

    • Brandon Hagel — 1.10 xG/60, 23G 26A, 2 HD goals, 15.8% shooting
    • Anthony Cirelli — 0.95 xG/60, 15G 18A, 5 HD goals, 17.0% shooting

    BOS

    • Viktor Arvidsson — 1.04 xG/60, 18G 24A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting
    • Tanner Jeannot — 0.75 xG/60, 6G 14A, 2 HD goals, 8.3% shooting

    Key Matchups

    TBL

    • Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Hagel (23G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
    • Watch Anthony Cirelli (15G, 17.0% shooting)

    BOS

    • Key matchup: Neutralize Viktor Arvidsson (18G, 1.04 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
    • Watch Tanner Jeannot (6G, 8.3% shooting)

    Tactical Notes

    • TBL: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
    • TBL defensive weak link: Victor Hedman
    • BOS: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
    • BOS defensive weak link: Elias Lindholm

    Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 54%
    54%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    54%
    46%
    TBL50BOS

    TBL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 3.4–3.1 BOS; 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
    TBL← edge
    edge →BOS
    53.7%46.7%
    53.0%49.0%
    3.382.97
    2.923.39
    3.493.27
    2.793.01
    1.0191.022

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.022) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    TBL
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    BOS
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.022
    BOS PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    TACTICALBOS

    Shutdown Assignment: Bruins

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

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

    TACTICALTBL

    Shutdown Assignment: Lightning

    Key matchup: Neutralize Viktor Arvidsson (18G, 1.04 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Viktor Arvidsson (18G, 1.04 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    STRENGTHTBL

    Brandon Hagel drives the Lightning offense

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

    WARNINGTBL

    Exploitable minutes: Victor Hedman

    Victor Hedman is on ice for 2.69 xGA/60 and 20 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Victor Hedman's shifts with the top line.

    Where the edges live
    • The Lightning own the underlying play — 53.7% 5v5 xG vs 46.7%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Bruins' PDO is 1.022 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Lightning own the underlying play — 53.7% 5v5 xG vs 46.7%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Bruins' PDO is 1.022 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    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
    BOS
    Viktor Arvidsson18G 24A
    1.04 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
    Tanner Jeannot6G 14A
    0.75 xG/60 · 2 HD · 8.3% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page