Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · VGK at TBL

Lightning edge the Golden Knights in overtime

Final / OTSun, Oct 26

VGKVegas Golden Knights1 TBLTampa Bay Lightning2

The verdict · earned

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

VGK 1 · TBL 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:39 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

Vegas created four high-danger chances to Tampa Bay's three and still lost 2–1 in overtime—a gap that typically predicts better scoring, but efficiency beat volume.

The Lightning controlled 60% of expected goals (3.08–2.09) and 60% of shot attempts (28–19 on goal), establishing the underlying edge that led to victory. Both offenses underperformed their xG significantly: Tampa by 1.08 goals, Vegas by 1.09. Both goaltenders played above expectation—A. Vasilevskiy saved 1.09 goals above expected for the Lightning, while C. Lindbom stopped 1.08 for Vegas.

The finish came from Nikita Kucherov's snap shot from the slot at 00:32 of overtime. Both teams generated three rebound chances; Vegas converted none, while Tampa converted one, the difference between possession dominance and the scoreboard.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Oct 26

VGK

TBL

Lightning edge the Golden Knights in overtime

Chances 2.1 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

VGK

2.09

TBL

3.08

41% of the chances60%

The board read VGK 1, TBL 2. The chances read VGK 2.1, TBL 3.1.

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

Luck check

TBL

−1.1

goals above expected

TBL3.08 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

VGK2.09 expected · 1 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

P1 04:53TBLB. Hagel0–1
P1 18:25VGKW. Karlsson1–1
OT 00:32TBLN. Kucherov1–2

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

Where the shots came from

VGK

25 shots

Final

64 shots

TBL

39 shots

VGK TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

VGKTBL

0 / 4

0.86 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.77 xG

1 / 11

1.07 xG

Medium

1 / 15

1.75 xG

0 / 26

0.17 xG

Low

0 / 46

0.56 xG

The Golden Knights went 0 for 4 from the slot.

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

In the net

B+

A. Vasilevskiy

+1.1

TBL · 18/19

B+

C. Lindbom

+1.1

VGK · 26/28

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning edge the Golden Knights in overtime

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 6–13

04:53TBLB. Hagel(V. Hedman, J. Guentzel)0–1
18:25VGKW. Karlsson(R. Smith, S. Theodore)1–1

2ndshots 2–11no goals

3rdshots 11–3no goals

OTshots 0–1

00:32TBLN. Kucherov(B. Hagel)1–2

score reads VGK–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.08

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.007

TBL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

61.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.09Expected goals3.08

TBL 60% of the chance quality

19Shots on goal28

4High-danger chances3

41All attempts (Corsi)64

Adjusted for score: VGK 40% · TBL 60%

Faceoffs · TBL won64%off56%neu28%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

VGK0 / 4 · 0.86 xG

TBL1 / 3 · 0.77 xG

Medium dangermid-range

VGK1 / 11 · 1.07 xG

TBL1 / 15 · 1.75 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

VGK0 / 26 · 0.17 xG

TBL0 / 46 · 0.56 xG

VGK went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.86 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

VGK

1 G · 2.09 xG · -1.1

TBL

2 G · 3.08 xG · -1.1

01234

VGK finished -1.1 against expected, TBL -1.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

VGK

WRIST0/11

SNAP1/9

SLAP0/1

TIP IN0/0

BAT0/1

BACKHAND0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/16

TBL

WRIST0/17

SNAP2/9

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/4

BAT0/2

BACKHAND0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/25

VGK

TBL

Off the rush

1 G on 14

1.42 xG

1 G on 23

2.29 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.43 xG

1 G on 3

0.44 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 0-for-11, TBL 0-for-17.

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

C. Lindbom

VGK · 26/28 · .929

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.8-0.2

Medium1/151.8+0.8

Low0/460.6+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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 18/19 · .947

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.9+0.9

Medium1/111.1+0.1

Low0/260.2+0.2

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

64 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

VGK

25 shots

Final

64 shots

TBL

39 shots

VGK TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK 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

B. Hagel

#38 · L · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:24 on ice · +2

S. Theodore

#27 · D · VGK

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 27:45 on ice · -1

J. Guentzel

#59 · C · TBL

0 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 23:08 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Oct 26

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:18 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 matchup defies prediction. The model projects a VGK 2.4–2.5 TBL score with the Lightning at 52% win probability—statistically equivalent to a coin flip.

Vegas enters with recent dominance: 6-2-2 over their last ten games. Tampa Bay has deteriorated, posting a -9 goal differential over the same span. The underlying metrics, however, compress that gap. Both teams generate 54.0% expected goals at five-on-five. Vegas owns 52.0% Corsi; the Lightning hold 53.0%. The possession edge is marginal.

Goaltending could separate them. J. Johansson and A. Schmid both play on back-to-backs, creating conditions for tired starts or backup assignments. Whoever takes the ice fresher will dictate play.

Vegas carries classic regression risk. A 0.983 PDO means the Golden Knights shoot below their expected rate—a deficit that corrects upward. Tampa Bay operates at 1.019 PDO, running hot on puck luck. That advantage shrinks as shooting percentages normalize.

Players to Watch

Brandon Saad (3G 6A) and Tomas Hertl (5G 17A) lead Vegas's scoring. Saad generates points at 0.91 xG/60 with 4.1% shooting; Hertl does so at 0.88 xG/60 with 4.3%. Both are producing at elevated rates relative to their underlying chances.

Tampa Bay counters with Brandon Hagel and Anthony Cirelli. Hagel (23G 26A) converts at 15.8% on 1.10 xG/60 with 2 high-danger goals. Cirelli (15G 18A) shoots at 17.0% on 0.95 xG/60 with 5 high-danger goals. Both operate at sustainable margins.

Rasmus Andersson is Vegas's defensive vulnerability. Victor Hedman anchors Tampa Bay's back line. The margin will turn on which team best controls those mismatches.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 52%

52%

TBL

Model favorite

48%

52%

VGK50TBL

TBL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VGK 2.4–2.5 TBL; 19% 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

VGK← edge

edge →TBL

54.0%54.0%

52.0%53.0%

2.522.67

2.112.28

2.122.38

2.101.85

0.9831.019

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 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

VGK

6-2-2

+5 GD · 1d rest

TBL

3-5-2

-9 GD · 1d rest

0.983

VGK 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 Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

J. Johansson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Schmid is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Golden Knights 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

VGK

Expected in goal

A. Schmid

back-to-back.885 last start

Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL

Expected in goal

J. Johansson

back-to-back.925 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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

VGK

Brandon Saad3G 6A

0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh

Tomas Hertl5G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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

Back to the front page