Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater

Breakdown · FLA at DET

Red Wings pull away from the Panthers

FinalWed, Oct 15

FLAFlorida Panthers1 DETDetroit Red Wings4

The verdict · earned

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

FLA 1 · DET 4

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:47 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 2.32-goal underperformance was the collapse. They generated 3.32 expected goals but scored just one—a gap that no goaltending can excuse alone.

Detroit dominated the underlying play. They controlled 59% of 5v5 expected goals (4.81 to 3.32) and held a 54% share of shot attempts (25 to 21). In the dangerous areas, the gap widened: Detroit claimed 10 high-danger chances to five.

The Panthers managed 0-for-5 in the scoring areas. Meanwhile, Detroit converted 4 of 10 high-danger chances at 40%—a ruthlessness that made the difference.

S. Bobrovsky (FLA) faced an impossible task. He saved 2.81 goals above expected on 21 saves, a 0.913 save percentage that masked the cascading errors around him. C. Talbot (DET) posted 0.952, gaining 2.32 goals above expectation—both goalies played well, but context is everything.

Detroit's efficiency was a study in execution. They generated just 0.089 expected goals per shot versus Florida's 0.053, meaning every DET chance carried more danger. They converted 2 goals on 25 rush chances, a result of structure rather than luck.

Michael Rasmussen's tip-in from the high slot at 19:42 of the third set the tone for a Red Wings team that never wavered once ahead.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 15

FLA

DET

Red Wings pull away from the Panthers

Chances 3.3 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

3.32

DET

4.81

41% of the chances59%

The board read FLA 1, DET 4. The chances read FLA 3.3, DET 4.8.

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

Luck check

DET

−0.8

goals above expected

DET4.81 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

FLA3.32 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Panthers left 2.3 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 02:09DETM. Appleton0–1
P2 09:36DETP. KanePP0–2
P2 14:05FLAB. Marchand1–2
P3 18:02DETM. AppletonEN1–3
P3 19:42DETM. RasmussenEN1–4

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

Where the shots came from

FLA

39 shots

Final

81 shots

DET

42 shots

FLA DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLADET

0 / 5

1.11 xG

High danger

4 / 10

2.96 xG

0 / 16

1.77 xG

Medium

0 / 12

1.36 xG

1 / 42

0.44 xG

Low

0 / 32

0.49 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

S. Bobrovsky

+2.8

FLA · 21/23

C. Talbot

+2.3

DET · 20/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Red Wings pull away from the Panthers

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 9–9no goals

2ndshots 5–11

02:09DETM. Appleton(D. Larkin)0–1
09:36DETP. Kanepower play(M. Seider, D. Larkin)0–2
14:05FLAB. Marchand(A. Lundell)1–2

3rdshots 7–5

18:02DETM. Appletonempty net(M. Rasmussen, A. DeBrincat)1–3
19:42DETM. Rasmussenempty net(A. DeBrincat)1–4

score reads FLA–DET

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.81

DET chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.8

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.058

DET puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

46.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.32Expected goals4.81

DET 59% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal25

5High-danger chances10

63All attempts (Corsi)54

Adjusted for score: FLA 57% · DET 43%

Faceoffs · DET won48%off69%neu56%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA0 / 5 · 1.11 xG

DET4 / 10 · 2.96 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA0 / 16 · 1.77 xG

DET0 / 12 · 1.36 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA1 / 42 · 0.44 xG

DET0 / 32 · 0.49 xG

FLA went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.77 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

1 G · 3.32 xG · -2.3

DET

4 G · 4.81 xG · -0.8

0123456

FLA finished -2.3 against expected, DET -0.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

WRIST0/15

SNAP0/9

TIP IN0/7

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/1

WRAP AROUND1/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/24

DET

WRIST2/17

SNAP1/13

TIP IN1/5

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/12

FLA

DET

Off the rush

1 G on 26

2.67 xG

2 G on 25

3.02 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.17 xG

0 G on 4

0.42 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-15, DET 2-for-17. DET scored 2 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

S. Bobrovsky

FLA · 21/23 · .913

+2.8

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger4/103.0-1.0

Medium0/121.4+1.4

Low0/320.5+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

C. Talbot

DET · 20/21 · .952

+2.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.1+1.1

Medium0/161.8+1.8

Low1/420.4-0.6

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

39 shots

Final

81 shots

DET

42 shots

FLA DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, DET 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

D. Larkin

#71 · C · —

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:56 on ice · +1

A. DeBrincat

#93 · R · —

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:20 on ice · +1

M. Appleton

#22 · C · —

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 15:12 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Oct 15

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Model draft

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:42 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 FLA 3.2 - 3.3 DET game with the Red Wings at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Keys to the game

Shutdown Assignment: Red Wings. Key matchup: Neutralize Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals)
Shutdown Assignment: Panthers. Key matchup: Neutralize Alex DeBrincat (17G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
Exploitable minutes: Brad Marchand. Brad Marchand is on ice for 3.24 xGA/60 and 31 high-danger shots against this season.

Season 5v5 Numbers

Metric	FLA	DET
xG%	50.6%	50.9%
Corsi%	51.9%	49.2%
PDO	0.989	0.986

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

Players to Watch

FLA

Sam Bennett — 0.97 xG/60, 18G 19A, 6 HD goals, 13.1% shooting
Brad Marchand — 0.93 xG/60, 17G 9A, 3 HD goals, 19.5% shooting

DET

Alex DeBrincat — 0.88 xG/60, 17G 28A, 2 HD goals, 9.0% shooting
Marco Kasper — 0.81 xG/60, 7G 8A, 1 HD goals, 6.1% shooting

Key Matchups

FLA

Key matchup: Neutralize Sam Bennett (18G, 0.97 xG/60, 6 HD goals)
Watch Brad Marchand (17G, 19.5% shooting)

DET

Key matchup: Neutralize Alex DeBrincat (17G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)
Watch Marco Kasper (7G, 6.1% shooting)

Tactical Notes

FLA: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
FLA defensive weak link: Brad Marchand
DET: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
DET defensive weak link: Axel Sandin-Pellikka

One Thing to Watch

Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DET 53%

53%

DET

Model favorite

47%

53%

FLA50DET

DET by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score FLA 3.2–3.3 DET; 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

FLA← edge

edge →DET

50.6%50.9%

51.9%49.2%

3.223.22

3.143.10

3.002.91

3.343.10

0.9890.986

DET holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.986) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

FLA

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

DET

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.986

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALDET

Shutdown Assignment: Red Wings

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

TACTICALFLA

Shutdown Assignment: Panthers

Key matchup: Neutralize Alex DeBrincat (17G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

WARNINGFLA

Exploitable minutes: Brad Marchand

Brad Marchand is on ice for 3.24 xGA/60 and 31 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Brad Marchand's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGDET

Exploitable minutes: Axel Sandin-Pellikka

Axel Sandin-Pellikka is on ice for 2.83 xGA/60 and 46 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Axel Sandin-Pellikka's shifts with the top line.

Things to watch

Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page