Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
Breakdown · TBL at CBJ

Blue Jackets hold off the Lightning

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 2 · CBJ 3
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:01 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

The scoreline reads 3–2, Columbus escaping with a win. But high-danger chances finished 8–8. This game should not have had a winner—the underlying numbers say coin flip, yet Columbus netted the extra goal.

Tampa Bay's problem wasn't volume. Expected goals split 4.29–3.89 in Columbus's favor—close enough to be noise, a 52–48 split. High-danger chances landed even. But 0/8 on prime scoring opportunities doesn't convert to a win, not when your opponent buries theirs. J. Greaves stopped 1.89 goals above expected, facing eight high-danger shots and saving all eight. J. Johansson matched him in outperformance—1.29 above expected—but his team's skaters never gave him a chance.

Columbus's advantage materialized on the rush. Three goals on 28 rush attempts. Tampa Bay notched two on 21. Kirill Marchenko's wrist shot from the high slot (P3, 01:15) became the margin—the turning point in a game that easily could have been 2–2 into overtime.

Both teams crashed the net ineffectively in rebound situations. Columbus created three rebound opportunities and converted zero. Tampa created five and converted zero. Neither team found secondary scoring.

The variance here is stark. Tampa Bay underperformed their xG by 1.9 goals. Columbus underperformed by 1.29. Both goalies played above expectation, which means both teams' skaters disappointed—but Columbus disappointed less. One unit couldn't close, the other sealed it when it mattered.

Three Stars

  • #8 Z. Werenski — 1A in 25:02
  • #77 V. Hedman — 1A in 24:23
  • #71 A. Cirelli — 1G in 23:06
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 18
TBL
2
CBJ
3

Blue Jackets hold off the Lightning

Chances 3.9 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.89
CBJ
4.29
48% of the chances53%

The board read TBL 2, CBJ 3. The chances read TBL 3.9, CBJ 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
−1.3
goals above expected
CBJ4.29 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL3.89 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning left 1.9 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 04:58CBJK. Johnson0–1
  2. P1 12:42TBLR. McDonagh1–1
  3. P1 16:22TBLA. CirelliPP2–1
  4. P2 13:59CBJD. Severson2–2
  5. P3 01:15CBJK. Marchenko2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
43 shots
2
Final
90 shots
CBJ
47 shots
3
TBL attackCBJ attack
TBL CBJ Goal
43
shots · 2 in
47
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLCBJ
0 / 8
2.21 xG
High danger
1 / 8
2.00 xG
1 / 9
1.12 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.68 xG
1 / 45
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.60 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Greaves
+1.9
CBJ · 22/24
B+
J. Johansson
+1.3
TBL · 28/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets hold off 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 6–11
  1. 04:58CBJK. Johnson(B. Jenner, A. Fantilli)0–1
  2. 12:42TBLR. McDonagh(P. Holmberg, E. Cernak)1–1
  3. 16:22TBLA. Cirellipower play(J. Guentzel, V. Hedman)2–1
2ndshots 3–14
  1. 13:59CBJD. Severson(M. Olivier, C. Coyle)2–2
3rdshots 15–6
  1. 01:15CBJK. Marchenko(D. Voronkov, Z. Werenski)2–3

score reads TBL–CBJ

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.29
CBJ chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.015
CBJ puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
50.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.89Expected goals4.29
CBJ 53% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal31
8High-danger chances8
62All attempts (Corsi)63
Adjusted for score: TBL 51% · CBJ 49%
Faceoffs · CBJ won70%off40%neu60%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL0 / 8 · 2.21 xG
CBJ1 / 8 · 2.00 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL1 / 9 · 1.12 xG
CBJ2 / 13 · 1.68 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 45 · 0.56 xG
CBJ0 / 42 · 0.60 xG

TBL went 0-for-8 from high danger on 2.21 expected goals — 2.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
2 G · 3.89 xG · -1.9
CBJ
3 G · 4.29 xG · -1.3
012345

TBL finished -1.9 against expected, CBJ -1.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
WRIST1/19
SNAP0/10
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/19
CBJ
WRIST2/30
SNAP0/6
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/16
TBL
CBJ
Off the rush
2 G on 21
1.80 xG
3 G on 28
3.16 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
1.35 xG
0 G on 3
0.63 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 1-for-19, CBJ 2-for-30. CBJ 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 · 28/31 · .903
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/82.0+1.0
Medium2/131.7-0.3
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

J. Greaves
CBJ · 22/24 · .917
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/82.2+2.2
Medium1/91.1+0.1
Low1/450.6-0.4

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
43 shots
2
Final
90 shots
CBJ
47 shots
3
TBL attackCBJ attack
TBL CBJ Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, CBJ 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
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 25:02 on ice · +2
V. Hedman
#77 · D · TBL
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:23 on ice
A. Cirelli
#71 · C · TBL
1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 23:06 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 18
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:58 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

This is a pick'em. The model projects a 3.3–3.2 Lightning win with Tampa at 51% probability—close enough that you should view it as a coin flip.

Tampa owns the underlying play. The Lightning carry a 53.7% 5v5 xG share to Columbus's 50.0%, and their 53.0% Corsi% edges the Blue Jackets' 51.1%. The gap is modest but real. Yet Tampa's PDO of 1.019 is running hot; expect some regression. Columbus sits at 1.003, closer to sustainable.

The Lightning's offense runs through Brandon Hagel. At 1.10 xG/60, Hagel has driven 23 goals and 26 assists with 2 high-danger goals and a 15.8% shooting rate. Anthony Cirelli adds 0.95 xG/60 with 15 goals, 18 assists, 5 high-danger goals, and a 17.0% shot. Columbus's answer is Boone Jenner, who operates at 0.98 xG/60 with 11 goals, 21 assists, 2 high-danger goals, but just 9.6% shooting—a sign he's overdue for positive variance. Mathieu Olivier provides secondary scoring at 0.89 xG/60 with 12 goals and 9 assists.

For Tampa to pull away, Hagel must impose his pace on the Blue Jackets' structure. For Columbus to stay in it, containing Hagel's creation and letting Jenner's shooting regress toward the mean are essential.

Players to Watch

TBL

  • Brandon Hagel: 1.10 xG/60, 23G 26A, 2 HD goals
  • Anthony Cirelli: 0.95 xG/60, 15G 18A, 5 HD goals

CBJ

  • Boone Jenner: 0.98 xG/60, 11G 21A, 2 HD goals
  • Mathieu Olivier: 0.89 xG/60, 12G 9A, 1 HD goal

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

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 51%
51%
TBL
Model favorite
51%
49%
TBL50CBJ

TBL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 3.3–3.2 CBJ; 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 →CBJ
53.7%50.0%
53.0%51.1%
3.383.14
2.923.14
3.493.00
2.793.06
1.0191.003

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.003) 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
CBJ
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALCBJ

Shutdown Assignment: Blue Jackets

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 Boone Jenner (11G, 0.98 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Boone Jenner (11G, 0.98 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 50.0%.
Regression watch
  • 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 50.0%.
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — 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
CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
Keep going

Where to next