Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Sat, Nov 8 · the slate
Breakdown · WSH at TBL

Lightning steal one from the Capitals against the run of play

FinalSat, Nov 8
WSHWashington Capitals2TBLTampa Bay Lightning3
The verdict · stolen

The Lightning stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.52–1.86 and won anyway.

WSH 2 · TBL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:08 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 Capitals controlled play decisively—eight high-danger chances to Tampa Bay's one, 3.52 expected goals to 1.86—yet lost 3–2. Washington was the superior team and still got beaten.

Goaltending decided the outcome. A. Vasilevskiy saved 2.5 goals above expected on 29 of 30 shots (0.967 SV%), a margin that flipped the result. L. Thompson conceded 1.1 goals above expected on 17 of 20 (0.850 SV%). That gap was decisive especially because the Capitals faced a precision disadvantage to begin with—they generated 0.058 expected goals per shot versus the Lightning's 0.043.

Finishing variance sealed it. The Capitals underperformed their xG by 1.52 despite creating four rebound opportunities, crashing the net without converting. The Lightning overperformed theirs by 1.14 and converted three of 19 rush chances, a lethal counter-attack rate. A deserved Washington victory dissolved into a 3–2 loss.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 8
WSH
2
TBL
3

Lightning steal one from the Capitals against the run of play

Chances 3.5 – 1.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Capitals deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
WSH
3.52
TBL
1.86
65% of the chances35%

The board read WSH 2, TBL 3. The chances read WSH 3.5, TBL 1.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+1.1
goals above expected
TBL1.86 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WSH3.52 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Capitals left 1.5 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 04:06WSHB. Duhaime1–0
  2. P1 06:07TBLE. Lilleberg1–1
  3. P1 15:09TBLJ. GuentzelPP1–2
  4. P2 17:08WSHJ. Carlson2–2
  5. P3 08:42TBLB. Hagel2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WSH
50 shots
2
Final
79 shots
TBL
29 shots
3
WSH attackTBL attack
WSH TBL Goal
50
shots · 2 in
29
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WSHTBL
1 / 8
1.70 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.19 xG
0 / 8
0.95 xG
Medium
3 / 12
1.19 xG
1 / 45
0.87 xG
Low
0 / 30
0.48 xG

High-danger looks: WSH 1 of 8, TBL 0 of 1.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Vasilevskiy
+2.5
TBL · 29/30
D-
L. Thompson
−1.1
WSH · 17/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning steal one from the Capitals against the run of play

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 13–8
  1. 04:06WSHB. Duhaime(E. Frank, N. Dowd)1–0
  2. 06:07TBLE. Lilleberg(J. Guentzel, C. D'Astous)1–1
  3. 15:09TBLJ. Guentzelpower play(V. Hedman, B. Hagel)1–2
2ndshots 10–8
  1. 17:08WSHJ. Carlson2–2
3rdshots 8–4
  1. 08:42TBLB. Hagel(D. James, C. D'Astous)2–3

score reads WSH–TBL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
1.86
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.037
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.52Expected goals1.86
WSH 65% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal20
8High-danger chances1
61All attempts (Corsi)43
Adjusted for score: WSH 61% · TBL 39%
Faceoffs · TBL won50%off35%neu47%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WSH1 / 8 · 1.70 xG
TBL0 / 1 · 0.19 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WSH0 / 8 · 0.95 xG
TBL3 / 12 · 1.19 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WSH1 / 45 · 0.87 xG
TBL0 / 30 · 0.48 xG

TBL went 3-for-12 from medium danger on 1.19 expected goals — 1.8 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WSH
2 G · 3.52 xG · -1.5
TBL
3 G · 1.86 xG · +1.1
01234

WSH finished -1.5 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
WSH
WRIST0/28
SLAP0/9
SNAP1/3
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/4
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER1/12
TBL
WRIST0/17
SLAP0/4
SNAP2/3
TIP IN1/3
BACKHAND0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/14
WSH
TBL
Off the rush
1 G on 29
2.63 xG
3 G on 19
1.48 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.60 xG
0 G on 0
0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WSH went 0-for-28, TBL 0-for-17. TBL 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
L. Thompson
WSH · 17/20 · .850
-1.1
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium3/121.2-1.8
Low0/300.5+0.5

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 · 29/30 · .967
+2.5
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/81.7+0.7
Medium0/80.9+0.9
Low1/450.9-0.1

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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WSH
50 shots
2
Final
79 shots
TBL
29 shots
3
WSH attackTBL attack
WSH TBL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WSH 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
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:31 on ice
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:18 on ice
C. D'Astous
#51 · D · TBL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:37 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 8
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:05 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 likes Tampa Bay. The Lightning get 56% win probability on a 2.5-2.8 expected goal spread, and they've earned it through territorial control, not luck.

Tampa's 54.0% xG share against Washington's 50.0% signals consistent dominance in quality of play. They maintain that edge in shot attempt share too—a 53.0% Corsi%—meaning they're dictating where the puck lives, not just stealing moments. Washington can't match either metric.

The Lightning also carry form momentum. They're 6-3-1 in their last ten, the kind of rhythm that tips close matchups.

But PDO regression looms for both teams. The Capitals sit at 1.018, the Lightning at 1.019—both running hot. That luck normalizes, which conceptually tightens the game, even if it doesn't reverse the underlying advantage.

Goaltending could be the wildcard. A. Vasilevskiy and C. Lindgren are both on back-to-backs, and coaching decisions here—or if they both start, the accumulated fatigue—could shift momentum.

For Washington, Alex Ovechkin remains the primary offensive engine at 0.97 xG/60 with 19G 17A and a 13.8% shooting rate that bankrolls his 2 high-danger goals. Anthony Beauvillier runs similar intensity at 0.89 xG/60 (14G 9A, 10.4% shooting, 2 HD goals) but with less volume to lean on.

Tampa's depth provides the leverage. Brandon Hagel operates at 1.10 xG/60—the highest among these four—with 23G 26A and a 15.8% shooting rate. That rate is unsustainable, but it reflects his positioning in high-danger areas (2 HD goals). Anthony Cirelli, at 0.95 xG/60, generates fewer chances but hits harder—5 high-danger goals across 15G 18A with a 17.0% shooting rate suggests he's finding dangerous spots at better frequency.

Defensively, watch Declan Chisholm for Washington and Victor Hedman for Tampa Bay—these are the weak links each team will test.

The Lightning's edge lives in territorial dominance, not fortune. They own the play, and that's why the model favors them.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 56%
56%
TBL
Model favorite
44%
56%
WSH50TBL

TBL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WSH 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
WSH← edge
edge →TBL
50.0%54.0%
49.0%53.0%
2.622.67
2.622.28
2.182.38
1.791.85
1.0181.019

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 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
WSH
4-5-1
+3 GD · 1d rest
TBL
6-3-1
+7 GD · 1d rest
1.018
WSH 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 50.0%.
  • 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 Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
  • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • A. Vasilevskiy is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • C. Lindgren is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Lightning are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in 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
WSH
Expected in goal
C. Lindgren
back-to-back.867 last start
Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 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
A. Vasilevskiy
back-to-back.906 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
WSH
Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% 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