Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
Breakdown · ANA at TBL

Lightning run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

ANA 3 · TBL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:02 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 Lightning edged the Ducks 4-3, a score that understates their dominance. They controlled 63% of expected goals (5.61–3.24) and restricted the Ducks to 2 high-danger chances against 11 of their own. But they underperformed their xG by 1.61 goals while L. Dostal overperformed by the same margin, making this closer than the metrics suggested it should have been.

The efficiency gap was stark. The Lightning generated shots at 0.077 expected goals per attempt; the Ducks at 0.051. That quality advantage should have won by four, not one. The Lightning converted off the rush (2 goals on 34 chances) and crashed effectively for rebounds (8 opportunities, 2 goals). Yet they failed to convert 11 high-danger chances. J. Johansson stopped 37 of 40 (0.925 SV%), but L. Dostal made a 100% save rate on high-danger shots—the statistical margin that kept Anaheim competitive.

Anthony Cirelli's wrist shot from the high slot (P3, 16:45) was the deciding moment. His 2 goals and assist in 20:56 drove the dominant performance. V. Hedman contributed 2 assists in 24:20, and J. Guentzel added 2 goals in 22:28. Anaheim matched Tampa Bay on rebound creation (4 chances, 1 conversion to the Lightning's 8 and 2) but couldn't overcome the chance differential.

The Ducks generated higher-quality looks than their shot total suggests, yet that qualitative edge counted for nothing against an 11-2 disadvantage in dangerous chances. L. Dostal's perfect marking kept them alive; the Lightning's inability to finish their chances created the illusion of a close game. It was dominance distorted only by variance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 25
ANA
3
TBL
4

Lightning run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.2 – 5.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.24
TBL
5.61
37% of the chances63%

The board read ANA 3, TBL 4. The chances read ANA 3.2, TBL 5.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−1.6
goals above expected
TBL5.61 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.24 expected · 3 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 09:10TBLJ. Guentzel0–1
  2. P2 04:42ANAJ. Trouba1–1
  3. P2 12:19TBLJ. Guentzel1–2
  4. P2 14:20TBLA. Cirelli1–3
  5. P3 07:11ANAR. Poehling2–3
  6. P3 08:10ANAT. Terry3–3
  7. P3 16:45TBLA. CirelliPP3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
49 shots
3
Final
104 shots
TBL
55 shots
4
ANA attackTBL attack
ANA TBL Goal
49
shots · 3 in
55
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANATBL
1 / 2
0.41 xG
High danger
0 / 11
2.71 xG
2 / 18
2.06 xG
Medium
4 / 19
2.24 xG
0 / 44
0.77 xG
Low
0 / 43
0.66 xG

High-danger looks: ANA 1 of 2, TBL 0 of 11.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
L. Dostal
+1.6
ANA · 29/33
C
J. Johansson
+0.2
TBL · 37/40
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Ducks 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 15–12
  1. 09:10TBLJ. Guentzel(B. Hagel, A. Cirelli)0–1
2ndshots 14–9
  1. 04:42ANAJ. Trouba(T. Terry, M. McTavish)1–1
  2. 12:19TBLJ. Guentzel(B. Point, N. Kucherov)1–2
  3. 14:20TBLA. Cirelli(B. Hagel, V. Hedman)1–3
3rdshots 11–12
  1. 07:11ANAR. Poehling(R. Johnston, D. Helleson)2–3
  2. 08:10ANAT. Terry(C. Gauthier, L. Carlsson)3–3
  3. 16:45TBLA. Cirellipower play(N. Kucherov, V. Hedman)3–4

score reads ANA–TBL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.61
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.6
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.008
TBL puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
53.3%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.24Expected goals5.61
TBL 63% of the chance quality
40Shots on goal33
2High-danger chances11
64All attempts (Corsi)73
Adjusted for score: ANA 50% · TBL 50%
Faceoffs · TBL won52%off55%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA1 / 2 · 0.41 xG
TBL0 / 11 · 2.71 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA2 / 18 · 2.06 xG
TBL4 / 19 · 2.24 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 44 · 0.77 xG
TBL0 / 43 · 0.66 xG

TBL went 0-for-11 from high danger on 2.71 expected goals — 2.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
3 G · 3.24 xG · -0.2
TBL
4 G · 5.61 xG · -1.6
0123456

ANA finished -0.2 against expected, TBL -1.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST1/32
SLAP1/8
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN1/1
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/15
TBL
WRIST2/22
SLAP0/13
SNAP0/10
BACKHAND1/4
TIP IN0/3
DEFLECTED1/2
POKE0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/18
ANA
TBL
Off the rush
1 G on 35
2.24 xG
2 G on 34
3.80 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.50 xG
2 G on 8
1.06 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 1-for-32, TBL 2-for-22. TBL 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
L. Dostal
ANA · 29/33 · .879
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/112.7+2.7
Medium4/192.2-1.8
Low0/430.7+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. Johansson
TBL · 37/40 · .925
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.4-0.6
Medium2/182.1+0.1
Low0/440.8+0.8

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

104 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
49 shots
3
Final
104 shots
TBL
55 shots
4
ANA attackTBL attack
ANA TBL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, TBL 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
A. Cirelli
#71 · C · TBL
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:56 on ice · +1
V. Hedman
#77 · D · TBL
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 24:20 on ice · +3
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 22:28 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 25
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:39 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

Anaheim at 2.5, Tampa Bay at 2.8: the model projects a game that narrows to a 54% win probability for the Lightning. That's about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The narrative argument runs counter to the underlying metrics. Anaheim is 6-2-2 in their last 10, running hot on points. Tampa Bay sits at minus-9 goal differential over the same stretch. The Ducks look alive; the Lightning look stuck.

But the five-on-five story is different. Tampa Bay leads in both expected goals percentage (54.0%) and Corsi percentage (53.0%), while Anaheim matches them in neither metric (52.0% xG%, 52.0% Corsi%). These are thin margins—the kind that explain why the model won't separate them decisively—but they matter. Neither team has imposed its will on play.

Luck is the wild card. Anaheim's PDO of 0.981 means they're running cold, generating quality chances that haven't converted. Tampa Bay's 1.019 runs hot in the opposite direction. The difference is substantial enough that regression is inevitable; the question is timing. The Lightning should expect their heater to cool, while the Ducks have positive variance coming.

The talent involved is comparable. Beckett Sennecke leads Anaheim with 1.03 expected goals per 60 minutes, 20 goals, 19 assists, and eight high-danger chances. Cutter Gauthier, at 25 goals on 12.9% shooting, has been even more prolific despite lower shot generation (0.99 xG/60). Gauthier's shooting rate should sustain given his underlying metrics.

Brandon Hagel is Tampa Bay's ace: 1.10 xG/60, 23 goals, 26 assists, and a scorching 15.8% shooting rate that flags some regression risk. Anthony Cirelli adds depth with 15 goals and 18 assists, though his 17.0% shooting rate is similarly elevated. Cirelli's assist total suggests he'll regress on shooting efficiency.

Both teams are underperforming in high-danger and rebound situations—each sitting at 0% in those categories—which is unsustainable and predicts positive regression for whoever converts first. Mason McTavish is Anaheim's defensive liability; Victor Hedman carries that responsibility for Tampa.

The close model projection isn't hedging uncertainty; it's reflecting genuine competitive balance. Whichever team's underlying skill shows up first wins. Given Tampa Bay's slight edge in possession metrics, the model's 54% for the Lightning makes sense, but only barely. This is a coin flip with a weighted coin.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 54%
54%
TBL
Model favorite
46%
54%
ANA50TBL

TBL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score ANA 2.5–2.8 TBL; 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
ANA← edge
edge →TBL
52.0%54.0%
52.0%53.0%
2.802.67
2.592.28
2.092.38
2.321.85
0.9811.019

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.019) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
ANA
6-2-2
+4 GD · 2d rest
TBL
3-5-2
-9 GD · 2d rest
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Ducks are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 in their last 10).
  • The Lightning are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
ANA
Expected in goal
P. Mrazek
2 days rest.881 last start
Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL
Expected in goal
A. Vasilevskiy
2 days rest.880 last start
Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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
ANA
Beckett Sennecke20G 19A
1.03 xG/60 · 8 HD · 13.5% sh
Cutter Gauthier25G 16A
0.99 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.9% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next