Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Washington Capitals sweater
← Tue, Oct 14 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at WSH

Capitals run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTTue, Oct 14
TBLTampa Bay Lightning2WSHWashington Capitals3
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 2 · WSH 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:26 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

Washington's 3-2 overtime victory obscures the underlying gap: the Capitals generated 4.21 expected goals to Tampa Bay's 2.38, held 64 percent of shot quality, and underperformed their xG by 1.21 goals.

The Capitals controlled play comprehensively. They held 60 percent of shot attempts (28–19 on goal) and led high-danger chances 8–5. Both teams were lethal in transition — Washington three goals on 26 chances, Tampa two on 20 — but the Capitals' volume advantage told. L. Thompson made 17 saves on 19 shots and was perfect on high-danger attempts (5 for 5). A. Vasilevskiy was also strong: 25 of 28, 1.21 goals above expected.

Tampa Bay's collapse came down to inefficiency: 0 for 5 on their best scoring chances. Washington's cumulative edge in volume and quality, despite underperforming xG, proved sufficient, though only after overtime.

Jakob Chychrun's snap shot from the doorstep at 01:19 of overtime provided the finish the Capitals' underlying dominance had warranted.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 14
TBL
2
WSH
3

Capitals run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.4 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Capitals earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
2.38
WSH
4.21
36% of the chances64%

The board read TBL 2, WSH 3. The chances read TBL 2.4, WSH 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WSH
−1.2
goals above expected
WSH4.21 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL2.38 expected · 2 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 07:06TBLJ. Guentzel1–0
  2. P2 17:38WSHA. Protas1–1
  3. P3 01:23TBLB. PointPP2–1
  4. P3 04:56WSHT. WilsonPP2–2
  5. OT 01:19WSHJ. Chychrun2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
29 shots
2
Final
76 shots
WSH
47 shots
3
TBL attackWSH attack
TBL WSH Goal
29
shots · 2 in
47
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLWSH
0 / 5
1.06 xG
High danger
2 / 8
2.26 xG
2 / 8
0.91 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.40 xG
0 / 24
0.42 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.55 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.2
TBL · 25/28
B
L. Thompson
+0.4
WSH · 17/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Capitals run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 8–7
  1. 07:06TBLJ. Guentzel(R. McDonagh, A. Cirelli)1–0
2ndshots 5–8
  1. 17:38WSHA. Protas(C. McMichael, T. Wilson)1–1
3rdshots 6–11
  1. 01:23TBLB. Pointpower play(V. Hedman, N. Kucherov)2–1
  2. 04:56WSHT. Wilsonpower play(D. Strome, J. Carlson)2–2
OTshots 0–2
  1. 01:19WSHJ. Chychrun(T. Wilson, D. Strome)2–3

score reads TBL–WSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.21
WSH chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
0.993
WSH puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
63.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.38Expected goals4.21
WSH 64% of the chance quality
19Shots on goal28
5High-danger chances8
37All attempts (Corsi)64
Adjusted for score: TBL 35% · WSH 65%
Faceoffs · WSH won56%off59%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL0 / 5 · 1.06 xG
WSH2 / 8 · 2.26 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL2 / 8 · 0.91 xG
WSH1 / 14 · 1.40 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL0 / 24 · 0.42 xG
WSH0 / 42 · 0.55 xG

TBL went 2-for-8 from medium danger on 0.91 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
2 G · 2.38 xG · -0.4
WSH
3 G · 4.21 xG · -1.2
012345

TBL finished -0.4 against expected, WSH -1.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
SNAP0/14
WRIST1/10
SLAP0/3
TIP IN1/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/8
WSH
SNAP2/25
WRIST0/9
SLAP0/5
TIP IN1/5
WRAP AROUND0/1
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/17
TBL
WSH
Off the rush
2 G on 20
1.89 xG
3 G on 26
2.64 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.20 xG
0 G on 7
1.01 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 0-for-14, WSH 2-for-25. WSH 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
A. Vasilevskiy
TBL · 25/28 · .893
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.3+0.3
Medium1/141.4+0.4
Low0/420.6+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

L. Thompson
WSH · 17/19 · .895
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.1+1.1
Medium2/80.9-1.1
Low0/240.4+0.4

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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
29 shots
2
Final
76 shots
WSH
47 shots
3
TBL attackWSH attack
TBL WSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, WSH 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
T. Wilson
#43 · R · WSH
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 20:21 on ice · +2
D. Strome
#17 · C · WSH
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:48 on ice
J. Carlson
#74 · D · WSH
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 26:10 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 14
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:30 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 3.3–3.2 Lightning victory with Tampa Bay at 52% win probability—as close to a coin flip as projection gets. This is a game where preseason odds and real-time markets align most closely.

Tampa Bay owns the underlying territory. They're outchancing Washington 53.7% to 49.6% in expected goals and controlling possession at 53.0% Corsi—a clean edge that should tilt play toward the Capitals' net. Yet that advantage disappears the moment you account for noise.

Both teams are running hot on PDO (Lightning 1.019, Capitals 1.018), meaning their actual goal rates exceed what their shot quality warrants. Regression typically corrects this, but not predictably enough to bet on it in a single game—which is why 52% is the only honest projection here.

For Tampa Bay, the spotlight is on Brandon Hagel. He's posting 1.10 xG per 60 minutes with 23 goals and 26 assists, and has 2 high-danger goals this season against a 15.8% shooting percentage—the mark of both skill and luck. Anthony Cirelli complements him with 0.95 xG per 60, 15 goals, 18 assists, and 5 high-danger goals; his 17.0% shooting rate is similarly elevated, suggesting both are punching above their sustainable levels. Washington's shutdown assignment is direct: contain Hagel's chances and hope variance corrects today.

Washington's offense hinges on Anthony Beauvillier and Aliaksei Protas. Beauvillier has 14 goals and 9 assists with a 0.89 xG/60 clip, but only 2 high-danger conversions against a 10.4% shooting percentage—an inverted ratio that hints at regression risk. Protas, the steadier presence, has 17 goals, 19 assists, and 5 high-danger goals at 0.84 xG per 60. Tampa Bay needs to pressure both into low-quality chances; Beauvillier especially offers opportunity if his shooting percentage normalizes downward.

The xG gap favors the Lightning, but not enough to override the noise of a single game. Lightning defenseman Victor Hedman and Capitals defenseman Declan Chisholm will face pressure in their own zones. The team that stays disciplined and limits turnovers—not the team that dominates on paper—wins the coin flip.

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 52%
52%
TBL
Model favorite
52%
48%
TBL50WSH

TBL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 3.3–3.2 WSH; 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 →WSH
53.7%49.6%
53.0%49.5%
3.383.23
2.923.29
3.493.18
2.792.90
1.0191.018

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.018) says TBL 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
WSH
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
WSH PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALWSH

Shutdown Assignment: Capitals

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 Anthony Beauvillier (14G, 0.89 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Anthony Beauvillier (14G, 0.89 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 49.6%.
  • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — 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 49.6%.
  • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — 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
WSH
Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page