Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater
← Thu, Oct 16 · the slate
Breakdown · FLA at NJD

Devils hold off the Panthers

FinalThu, Oct 16
FLAFlorida Panthers1NJDNew Jersey Devils3
The verdict · earned

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

FLA 1 · NJD 3
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:51 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

New Jersey's 3–1 win looks straightforward, but the underlying story is Florida's spectacular underperformance. The Panthers were expected to score 2.68 goals based on shot quality, yet managed only one—a 1.68-goal shortfall that handed New Jersey the game as much as any offensive dominance did. The Devils controlled 56% of expected goals (3.47–2.68 xG) and 60% of shot attempts (33–22), backing their scoreline with overwhelming underlying numbers.

J. Allen (NJD) saved 1.68 goals above expected. Across 21 of 22 saves, he made critical stops that converted New Jersey's overall control into a decisive margin. D. Tarasov (FLA) made 30 of 33 saves, a respectable rate against a relentless offensive approach.

Nico Hischier's wrist shot from the high slot at 11:47 of the third period exemplified New Jersey's execution. The Devils converted 50% of their high-danger chances (2 of 4) and scored twice on 25 rush attempts. They created three rebound opportunities and converted none, yet their first-chance offensive efficiency proved decisive. Florida created four rebound opportunities and converted one, a discrepancy that reflected their broader inability to capitalize.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 16
FLA
1
NJD
3

Devils hold off the Panthers

Chances 2.7 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Devils earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
2.68
NJD
3.47
44% of the chances56%

The board read FLA 1, NJD 3. The chances read FLA 2.7, NJD 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NJD
−0.5
goals above expected
NJD3.47 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA2.68 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 1.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:59FLAE. Rodrigues1–0
  2. P2 05:48NJDJ. HughesPP1–1
  3. P3 06:23NJDT. Meier1–2
  4. P3 11:47NJDN. Hischier1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
36 shots
1
Final
84 shots
NJD
48 shots
3
FLA attackNJD attack
FLA NJD Goal
36
shots · 1 in
48
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLANJD
0 / 4
1.03 xG
High danger
2 / 4
0.86 xG
1 / 11
1.13 xG
Medium
1 / 18
1.94 xG
0 / 44
0.52 xG
Low
0 / 45
0.67 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Allen
+1.7
NJD · 21/22
B
D. Tarasov
+0.5
FLA · 30/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Devils hold off 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 6–12
  1. 01:59FLAE. Rodrigues(B. Marchand, S. Jones)1–0
2ndshots 9–13
  1. 05:48NJDJ. Hughespower play(J. Bratt, T. Meier)1–1
3rdshots 7–8
  1. 06:23NJDT. Meier(S. Nemec, B. Dillon)1–2
  2. 11:47NJDN. Hischier(D. Mercer)1–3

score reads FLA–NJD

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.47
NJD chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.5
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.028
NJD puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
53.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.68Expected goals3.47
NJD 56% of the chance quality
22Shots on goal33
4High-danger chances4
59All attempts (Corsi)67
Adjusted for score: FLA 47% · NJD 54%
Faceoffs · NJD won44%off55%neu36%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA0 / 4 · 1.03 xG
NJD2 / 4 · 0.86 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA1 / 11 · 1.13 xG
NJD1 / 18 · 1.94 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA0 / 44 · 0.52 xG
NJD0 / 45 · 0.67 xG

NJD went 2-for-4 from high danger on 0.86 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
1 G · 2.68 xG · -1.7
NJD
3 G · 3.47 xG · -0.5
01234

FLA finished -1.7 against expected, NJD -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
WRIST0/20
SLAP0/7
SNAP1/4
BACKHAND0/5
TIP IN0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/23
NJD
WRIST1/18
SLAP0/9
SNAP1/9
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN1/5
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/19
FLA
NJD
Off the rush
0 G on 18
1.71 xG
2 G on 25
2.67 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.64 xG
0 G on 3
0.11 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-20, NJD 1-for-18. NJD 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
D. Tarasov
FLA · 30/33 · .909
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/40.9-1.1
Medium1/181.9+0.9
Low0/450.7+0.7

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. Allen
NJD · 21/22 · .955
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium1/111.1+0.1
Low0/440.5+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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
36 shots
1
Final
84 shots
NJD
48 shots
3
FLA attackNJD attack
FLA NJD Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, NJD 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. Meier
#28 · R · —
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 20:08 on ice · +2
S. Jones
#3 · D · —
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 24:47 on ice · -1
J. Hughes
#86 · C · —
1 G · 0 A · 8 SOG · 21:38 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 3:33 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 to 3.3 goal game favoring the Devils, who carry a 52% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

At five-on-five, the teams are nearly indistinguishable: Florida 50.6% xG% and 51.9% Corsi% against New Jersey's 50.7% xG% and 51.3% Corsi%. The dividing line is luck. New Jersey's 0.971 PDO is running cold—due for positive regression that could tilt late-season outcomes.

Sam Bennett is Florida's offensive engine at 0.97 xG/60 with 18 goals, 19 assists, and six high-danger chances, though his 13.1% shooting rate signals regression risk. The Devils must shut him down. Brad Marchand layers the secondary threat, posting 17 goals and 9 assists on just 0.93 xG/60, running 19.5% shooting that won't last.

Timo Meier anchors New Jersey's attack at 1.08 xG/60, the league's most dangerous offensive profile, with 13 goals, 15 assists, and three high-danger tallies. His 6.7% shooting is a built-in regression play; Florida must contain him. Jack Hughes trails Meier at 0.88 xG/60 but has collected 18 goals and 17 assists, proving volume compounds when it clusters near the net.

New Jersey's PDO cold spell is the wildcard here. If regression strikes this week, the Devils could push past the model's 3.1-goal ceiling. Florida's shooting profile, led by Marchand's unsustainable spree, inverts the risk: goals dry up, and the coin flip stays face-up.

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

NJD 52%
52%
NJD
Model favorite
48%
52%
FLA50NJD

NJD by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 3.1–3.3 NJD; 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 →NJD
50.6%50.7%
51.9%51.3%
3.223.16
3.143.07
3.002.76
3.343.09
0.9890.971

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.971) 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
NJD
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALNJD

Shutdown Assignment: Devils

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)

TACTICALFLA

Shutdown Assignment: Panthers

Key matchup: Neutralize Timo Meier (13G, 1.08 xG/60, 3 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Timo Meier (13G, 1.08 xG/60, 3 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.

WARNINGNJD

Exploitable minutes: Johnathan Kovacevic

Johnathan Kovacevic is on ice for 2.72 xGA/60 and 26 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Johnathan Kovacevic's shifts with the top line.

Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page