Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Thu, Oct 30 · the slate
Breakdown · DAL at TBL

Lightning run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTThu, Oct 30
DALDallas Stars1TBLTampa Bay Lightning2
The verdict · earned

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

DAL 1 · TBL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:50 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

Tampa Bay controlled 66% of 5v5 expected goals (5.24–2.64), 61% of shot attempts (33–21), and high-danger chances 8–3, yet only won 2–1 in overtime. The margin between dominance and result was goaltending variance.

J. Oettinger saved 3.24 goals above expected—a margin so large it absorbed the entirety of Tampa's underlying advantage. A. Vasilevskiy saved 1.64 above expected, solid work against a relentless offensive assault, but insufficient to steal a game Tampa dominated.

The Lightning generated nearly twice Dallas's expected offensive output and still scored only two goals. This wasn't inefficiency; it was the consequence of facing a goaltender in peak form. Oettinger's overperformance converted a rout into a one-goal game.

Anthony Cirelli's backhander from the doorstep at 02:36 of overtime finally breached Dallas's defense. It was the goal that matched result to underlying play.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 30
DAL
1
TBL
2

Lightning run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.6 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
2.64
TBL
5.24
34% of the chances67%

The board read DAL 1, TBL 2. The chances read DAL 2.6, TBL 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−3.2
goals above expected
TBL5.24 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL2.64 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars left 1.6 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. P2 15:02TBLB. HagelPP0–1
  2. P3 02:03DALA. Erne1–1
  3. OT 02:36TBLA. Cirelli1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
30 shots
1
Final
88 shots
TBL
58 shots
2
DAL attackTBL attack
DAL TBL Goal
30
shots · 1 in
58
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALTBL
0 / 3
0.74 xG
High danger
2 / 8
1.85 xG
1 / 14
1.60 xG
Medium
0 / 20
2.47 xG
0 / 28
0.30 xG
Low
0 / 42
0.92 xG

The Stars went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Oettinger
+3.2
DAL · 31/33
A
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.6
TBL · 20/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Stars 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 6–11no goals
    2ndshots 4–11
    1. 15:02TBLB. Hagelpower play(G. Goncalves, C. D'Astous)0–1
    3rdshots 10–8
    1. 02:03DALA. Erne(A. Petrovic, R. Faksa)1–1
    OTshots 1–3
    1. 02:36TBLA. Cirelli1–2

    score reads DAL–TBL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.24
    TBL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −3.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.006
    TBL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    60.9%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.64Expected goals5.24
    TBL 67% of the chance quality
    21Shots on goal33
    3High-danger chances8
    45All attempts (Corsi)70
    Adjusted for score: DAL 40% · TBL 60%
    Faceoffs · TBL won42%off50%neu39%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    DAL0 / 3 · 0.74 xG
    TBL2 / 8 · 1.85 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    DAL1 / 14 · 1.60 xG
    TBL0 / 20 · 2.47 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    DAL0 / 28 · 0.30 xG
    TBL0 / 42 · 0.92 xG

    TBL went 0-for-20 from medium danger on 2.47 expected goals — 2.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    DAL
    1 G · 2.64 xG · -1.6
    TBL
    2 G · 5.24 xG · -3.2
    0123456

    DAL finished -1.6 against expected, TBL -3.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    DAL
    SNAP0/12
    WRIST0/9
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN1/5
    BACKHAND0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/15
    TBL
    SNAP0/39
    WRIST1/2
    SLAP0/7
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND1/7
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/12
    DAL
    TBL
    Off the rush
    1 G on 17
    1.83 xG
    2 G on 35
    3.50 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 5
    0.64 xG
    0 G on 9
    1.15 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: DAL went 0-for-12, TBL 0-for-39. 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
    J. Oettinger
    DAL · 31/33 · .939
    +3.2
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/81.9-0.1
    Medium0/202.5+2.5
    Low0/420.9+0.9

    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 · 20/21 · .952
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium1/141.6+0.6
    Low0/280.3+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

    88 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    DAL
    30 shots
    1
    Final
    88 shots
    TBL
    58 shots
    2
    DAL attackTBL attack
    DAL TBL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL 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 · 0 A · 3 SOG · 23:32 on ice · +1
    A. Cirelli
    #71 · C · TBL
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:57 on ice · +1
    C. D'Astous
    #51 · D · TBL
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:53 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Oct 30
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:48 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

    The model projects a genuine coin flip: Dallas 2.3–2.6 against Tampa, with the Lightning favored at 55% win probability. That's about as close to pick'em as you get. But dig into the underlying play, and Tampa's advantage clarifies.

    At even strength, the Lightning dominate. They're at 54.0% expected goals and 53.0% Corsi. Dallas sits at 51.0% xG and 47.0% Corsi—a consistent 3–6 point gap in the metrics that forecast play. The Lightning will control territory and high-danger chances for 60 minutes. In hockey, that's a real edge.

    Both teams are running hot on PDO, which complicates the picture. Tampa's is 1.019; Dallas's is 1.024. When luck normalizes—and it will—both offenses will cool, and the underlying advantage becomes clearer.

    Offensively, Dallas has a concentration risk. Jason Robertson has 25 goals, 21 assists, 0.96 xG per 60 minutes, and a 12.4% shooting rate. Michael Bunting provides support at 8 goals and 14 assists, but his 0.83 xG per 60 is modest. If Robertson falters, the Stars falter.

    Tampa's attack spreads the load. Brandon Hagel has 23 goals and 26 assists with 1.10 xG per 60—elite. Anthony Cirelli matches him in danger with 15 goals, 18 assists, 0.95 xG per 60, and 17.0% shooting; he's added 5 hard-edged goals. Multiple weapons mean multiple ways to score.

    Defensively, both teams carry weak points. Dallas leans on Tyler Myers. Tampa depends on Victor Hedman. In a game decided by possession and luck balance, the team that protects these links wins.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 55%
    55%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    45%
    55%
    DAL50TBL

    TBL by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.3–2.6 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
    DAL← edge
    edge →TBL
    51.0%54.0%
    47.0%53.0%
    2.362.67
    2.292.28
    2.072.38
    1.681.85
    1.0241.019

    TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.019) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    DAL
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    TBL
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.024
    DAL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 51.0%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    DAL
    Jason Robertson25G 21A
    0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
    Michael Bunting8G 14A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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