Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
Breakdown · TBL at DET

J. Gibson stands tall as the Red Wings edge the Lightning

The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.89–3.10 and won anyway.

TBL 1 · DET 2
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:58 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

Detroit won 2–1 in overtime, but the underlying numbers say Tampa Bay deserved better. The Lightning controlled 56% of expected goals at five-on-five while losing the game—a margin so significant that it constitutes not variance but theft.

Expected goals finished 3.89–3.10 in Tampa's favor. Detroit held 49% of shot attempts (31–32 on goal). High-danger chances split 6–4 to Tampa. None of this produced a Lightning win. J. Gibson made that impossible.

Gibson finished with 31 saves on 32 shots and a 0.969 save percentage, posting a +2.89 performance above expected. He faced six high-danger chances and stopped all six. By the numbers, he prevented nearly three goals beyond what models predict—the difference between a loss and a win.

A. Vasilevskiy made 29 saves on 31 shots and finished +1.10 above expected. His night was competent. The problem was not goaltending but finishing: Tampa converted zero of its six high-danger chances. They outplayed Detroit across the board and scored once. That imbalance doesn't happen twice.

The turning point arrived at 3:36 of overtime. Dylan Larkin took a snap shot from the high slot. It was all Detroit needed.

This was a game Tampa won through the first sixty minutes and lost in one. J. Gibson made that loss inevitable.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 17
TBL
1
DET
2

J. Gibson stands tall as the Red Wings edge the Lightning

Chances 3.9 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.89
DET
3.10
56% of the chances44%

The board read TBL 1, DET 2. The chances read TBL 3.9, DET 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
−1.1
goals above expected
DET3.10 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL3.89 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning left 2.9 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 13:02DETA. Sandin-Pellikka0–1
  2. P3 16:17TBLJ. Moser1–1
  3. OT 03:36DETD. Larkin1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
50 shots
1
Final
97 shots
DET
47 shots
2
TBL attackDET attack
TBL DET Goal
50
shots · 1 in
47
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLDET
0 / 6
1.41 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.87 xG
0 / 16
1.83 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.48 xG
1 / 52
0.65 xG
Low
1 / 43
0.75 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Gibson
+2.9
DET · 31/32
B+
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.1
TBL · 29/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Gibson stands tall as the Red Wings edge the Lightning

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. 13:02DETA. Sandin-Pellikka(D. Larkin, M. Appleton)0–1
2ndshots 5–10no goals
    3rdshots 19–6
    1. 16:17TBLJ. Moser(V. Hedman, C. Geekie)1–1
    OTshots 2–3
    1. 03:36DETD. Larkin(J. Compher)1–2

    score reads TBL–DET

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.10
    DET chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.019
    DET puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    45.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.89Expected goals3.10
    TBL 56% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal31
    6High-danger chances4
    74All attempts (Corsi)61
    Adjusted for score: TBL 58% · DET 42%
    Faceoffs · DET won52%off36%neu70%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TBL0 / 6 · 1.41 xG
    DET1 / 4 · 0.87 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TBL0 / 16 · 1.83 xG
    DET0 / 14 · 1.48 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TBL1 / 52 · 0.65 xG
    DET1 / 43 · 0.75 xG

    TBL went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.83 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TBL
    1 G · 3.89 xG · -2.9
    DET
    2 G · 3.10 xG · -1.1
    012345

    TBL finished -2.9 against expected, DET -1.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TBL
    WRIST0/21
    SNAP0/8
    SLAP1/11
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    BAT0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/24
    DET
    WRIST1/16
    SNAP1/13
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN0/8
    BACKHAND0/5
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BAT0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/14
    TBL
    DET
    Off the rush
    0 G on 20
    1.50 xG
    1 G on 31
    2.27 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 10
    1.71 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.59 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 0-for-21, DET 1-for-16.

    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 · 29/31 · .935
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/40.9-0.1
    Medium0/141.5+1.5
    Low1/430.8-0.3

    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. Gibson
    DET · 31/32 · .969
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.4+1.4
    Medium0/161.8+1.8
    Low1/520.7-0.3

    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

    97 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TBL
    50 shots
    1
    Final
    97 shots
    DET
    47 shots
    2
    TBL attackDET attack
    TBL DET Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL 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 · —
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 23:12 on ice · +2
    V. Hedman
    #77 · D · —
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 26:12 on ice
    J. Moser
    #90 · D · —
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 21:21 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Oct 17
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:55 PMEdited 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

    This is a genuine pick'em—the model projects expected goals of 2.6 for Tampa against 2.5 for Detroit, yet Detroit sits at 48% win probability.

    Tampa Bay controls the underlying play. The Lightning run a 54.0% expected goals share at 5v5 against Detroit's 49.0%. They drive territorial pressure at 53.0% Corsi. But Tampa's 1.019 PDO signals a team converting luck at unsustainable rates. Regression is coming.

    Detroit's edge lies in restraint. The Red Wings operate at 0.985 PDO, well below league mean. Their expected play doesn't approach Tampa's, but bad luck has masked their true strength. If that flips, even partially, Detroit's competitive.

    The offensive matchups favor Tampa. Brandon Hagel (23G, 1.10 xG/60) generates high-danger chances at an elite rate, and his 15.8% shooting amplifies the result. Anthony Cirelli (15G, 17.0% shooting) is similarly efficient. Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat (17G, 0.88 xG/60) as a volume-based threat and Marco Kasper (7G) converting at 6.1%, generating at only 0.81 xG/60—well below Cirelli or Hagel.

    The deciding variable: Does Tampa's regression happen tonight? The Lightning own the underlying play by a clear margin. Victor Hedman represents their defensive weak link; Axel Sandin-Pellikka serves the same role for Detroit. The team that leaks fewer soft chances wins.

    • Tampa's underlying edge is clear—54.0% xG share and 53.0% Corsi.
    • But Tampa's luck is running out—1.019 PDO signals regression is imminent.
    • Detroit sits at 0.985 PDO, due for a positive variance event.

    Data: MoneyPuck 5v5 models, NHL API

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 52%
    52%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    TBL50DET

    TBL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.5 DET; 18% 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 →DET
    54.0%49.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.672.38
    2.282.50
    2.381.73
    1.852.07
    1.0190.985

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.985) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    TBL
    6-3-1
    -1 GD · 3d rest
    DET
    6-4-0
    +3 GD · 2d rest
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.985
    DET PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • TBL owns the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • TBL drives Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • TBL PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • TBL owns the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • TBL drives Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • TBL PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    TBL
    Expected in goal
    A. Vasilevskiy
    3 days rest.893 last start
    Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    DET
    Expected in goal
    C. Talbot
    2 days rest.952 last start
    Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

    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
    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