Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Sat, Nov 15 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at FLA

Lightning run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Nov 15
TBLTampa Bay Lightning3FLAFlorida Panthers1
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 3 · FLA 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:02 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 won 3-1, and the underlying metrics justified the margin. The Panthers held 54% of shot attempts—yet Tampa Bay controlled expected goals 61–39 (3.84–2.45). That inversion is everything.

The Lightning generated 0.094 expected goals per shot; the Panthers mustered 0.040. More than double the efficiency. On the rush, this gap materialized into goals: Tampa Bay converted three times on 23 chances, making the most of high-speed play when the Panthers' defense was scrambled.

The Panthers underperformed their xG by 1.45 goals—a deficit they couldn't absorb with a 39% share of expected production. S. Bobrovsky saved 1.84 goals above expected in a losing effort, proof that some games are over before either goalie takes a shot. A. Vasilevskiy, by contrast, faced gentler looks (3 high-danger chances to 4) and finished +1.45—a comfortable margin that reflected Tampa Bay's control.

Zemgus Girgensons's snap shot from the high slot (19:09, third period) arrived as punctuation: a goal struck when the game's outcome was already decided by structure, not luck.

The Three Stars:

  • #13 S. Reinhart (FLA) — 1A in 23:28
  • #15 A. Lundell (FLA) — 1A in 23:05
  • #86 N. Kucherov (TBL) — 1A in 22:31
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 15
TBL
3
FLA
1

Lightning run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.8 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.84
FLA
2.45
61% of the chances39%

The board read TBL 3, FLA 1. The chances read TBL 3.8, FLA 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−0.8
goals above expected
TBL3.84 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA2.45 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
  1. P1 12:19TBLE. Lilleberg1–0
  2. P2 11:31FLAB. MarchandPP1–1
  3. P3 04:09TBLJ. Finley2–1
  4. P3 19:09TBLZ. GirgensonsEN3–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
34 shots
3
Final
81 shots
FLA
47 shots
1
TBL attackFLA attack
TBL FLA Goal
34
shots · 3 in
47
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLFLA
1 / 4
1.71 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.65 xG
1 / 15
1.65 xG
Medium
1 / 7
0.66 xG
1 / 22
0.48 xG
Low
0 / 52
1.14 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Bobrovsky
+1.8
FLA · 17/19
B+
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.4
TBL · 22/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Panthers 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 10–6
  1. 12:19TBLE. Lilleberg(N. Kucherov)1–0
2ndshots 7–7
  1. 11:31FLAB. Marchandpower play(S. Reinhart, A. Lundell)1–1
3rdshots 3–10
  1. 04:09TBLJ. Finley(C. Douglas, S. Sabourin)2–1
  2. 19:09TBLZ. Girgensonsempty net(Y. Gourde)3–1

score reads TBL–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.84
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.057
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
39.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.84Expected goals2.45
TBL 61% of the chance quality
20Shots on goal23
4High-danger chances3
41All attempts (Corsi)62
Adjusted for score: TBL 38% · FLA 63%
Faceoffs · FLA won57%off65%neu47%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL1 / 4 · 1.71 xG
FLA0 / 3 · 0.65 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL1 / 15 · 1.65 xG
FLA1 / 7 · 0.66 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 22 · 0.48 xG
FLA0 / 52 · 1.14 xG

FLA went 0-for-52 from low danger on 1.14 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
3 G · 3.84 xG · -0.8
FLA
1 G · 2.45 xG · -1.4
012345

TBL finished -0.8 against expected, FLA -1.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
SNAP2/19
WRIST0/5
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND1/2
OTHER0/7
FLA
SNAP0/11
WRIST0/22
SLAP0/8
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND1/4
OTHER0/15
TBL
FLA
Off the rush
3 G on 23
2.68 xG
1 G on 31
1.84 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.93 xG
0 G on 2
0.06 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-19, FLA 0-for-11. 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
A. Vasilevskiy
TBL · 22/23 · .957
+1.4
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium1/70.7-0.3
Low0/521.1+1.1

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

S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 17/19 · .895
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.7+0.7
Medium1/151.6+0.7
Low1/220.5-0.5

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
34 shots
3
Final
81 shots
FLA
47 shots
1
TBL attackFLA attack
TBL FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, FLA 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
S. Reinhart
#13 · C · FLA
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:28 on ice · -2
A. Lundell
#15 · C · FLA
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:05 on ice · -1
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
0 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 22:31 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 15
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:59 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 2.6–2.5 Lightning win with Tampa Bay at 52% probability—this is as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The underlying matchup is tighter than the goal projection suggests.

Tampa Bay owns the possession battle decisively. The Lightning's 54.0% 5v5 expected goals percentage exceeds Florida's 49.0% by enough to matter; their 53.0% Corsi% similarly dominates the 52.0% Panthers' rate. These aren't blowout margins, but they're real.

The catch: Tampa's 1.019 PDO suggests the Lightning are running hot. Regression is coming. Florida's 0.989 PDO implies the opposite—the Panthers are due for positive variance, which could narrow what looks like a small edge into no edge at all.

Watch D. Tarasov, on a back-to-back, for a potential backup start or simply tired legs between the pipes. That uncertainty alone shifts volatility.

For Tampa, Brandon Hagel (23G, 26A, 1.10 xG/60, 15.8% shooting) remains the engine. His 2 high-danger goals show he's not padding totals on luck alone. Anthony Cirelli (15G, 18A, 0.95 xG/60, 5 high-danger goals) has been efficient; his 17.0% shooting is sustainable enough to trust he's scoring at or near his true rate.

Florida's counter: Sam Bennett (18G, 19A, 0.97 xG/60, 6 high-danger goals) generates chances at a similar clip but with more finish—his 13.1% shooting rate reflects genuine efficiency. Brad Marchand (17G, 9A, 0.93 xG/60, 3 high-danger goals) is a secondary threat carrying an eye-catching 19.5% shooting rate; sustainability is the question there.

The defensive liability for Tampa is Victor Hedman; for Florida, it's Marchand—a different kind of problem when your most dangerous offensive player is also a liability on the other end.

This game hinges on whether Tampa's possession edge translates to actual advantage or whether Florida's unfavorable PDO regresses toward the mean. Either way, it's a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 52%
52%
TBL
Model favorite
52%
48%
TBL50FLA

TBL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.5 FLA; 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
TBL← edge
edge →FLA
54.0%49.0%
53.0%52.0%
2.672.48
2.282.56
2.381.98
1.852.21
1.0190.989

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.989) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TBL
7-3-0
+6 GD · 2d rest
FLA
6-3-1
+3 GD · 1d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA 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 49.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • D. Tarasov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TBL
Expected in goal
A. Vasilevskiy
2 days rest.615 last start
Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

FLA
Expected in goal
D. Tarasov
back-to-back.925 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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
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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page