Backcheck
Recap · VGK at TBL

Lightning edge the Golden Knights in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 11, 1:39 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
VGK
Vegas Golden Knights
1
Home
TBL
Tampa Bay Lightning
2
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.09Expected goals3.08
60% share for the better side
19Shot attempts (SOG)28
4High-danger chances3
41Corsi (all attempts)64
Score-adjusted: 40% / 60%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. LindbomVGK
+1.1
A. VasilevskiyTBL
+1.1

VGK finished -1.1 against expected, TBL -1.1 — A. Vasilevskiy (TBL) saved 1.1 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:24 TOI · +2
S. Theodore
#27 · D · VGK
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 27:45 TOI · -1
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
0 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 23:08 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • C. Lindbom (VGK) stopped 1.1 goals above expected.
  • TBL created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VGK created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · VGK at TBL · 5:00 PM ET

Golden Knights at Lightning: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 1:18 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
TBL
Model favorite
48%
52%
VGK50TBL

TBL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VGK 2.42.5 TBL; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

VGK← edge
edge →TBL
54.0%5v5 xG%54.0%
52.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.52xGF / 602.67
2.11xGA / 602.28
2.12Goals for / gm2.38
2.10Goals against / gm1.85
0.983PDO — luck, not skill1.019

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.983 vs 1.019) says TBL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters