Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
← Sun, Nov 16 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at TBL

K. Lankinen stands tall as the Canucks edge the Lightning

FinalSun, Nov 16
VANVancouver Canucks6TBLTampa Bay Lightning2
The verdict · stolen

The Canucks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.36–4.84 and won anyway.

VAN 6 · TBL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:21 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 Canucks stole this one. Vancouver won 6-2 despite losing the xG battle 4.84–2.36 — the Lightning controlled 67% of expected goals.

K. Lankinen is why the scoreboard doesn't match the chances. The goaltender stopped 28 of 30 shots with a 0.933 SV%, saving 2.84 goals above expected. On high-danger attempts, he was perfect: 11 for 11.

Tampa Bay made this easy to steal. The Lightning held 62% of shot attempts (30–18 on goal), created 11 high-danger chances, and converted none. Their only reliable layer was the rush: 2 goals on 29 chances. J. Johansson's 12 saves on 17 shots (0.706 SV%) reflected the gap between their dominance and their execution. He gave up 2.64 goals above expected, well below his team's workload.

Vancouver's finish was elite, if temporary. They outperformed their xG by 3.64 goals, converting at a rate unsustainable over a season. The Canucks' rush attack was clinical — 4 goals on 17 chances — and with Lankinen's perfect night, it held.

Marcus Pettersson's wrist shot from the high slot at 16:57 of the third period was the turning point, the moment when Tampa's dominance stopped mattering.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 16
VAN
6
TBL
2

K. Lankinen stands tall as the Canucks edge the Lightning

Chances 2.4 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
2.36
TBL
4.84
33% of the chances67%

The board read VAN 6, TBL 2. The chances read VAN 2.4, TBL 4.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
+3.6
goals above expected
VAN2.36 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL4.84 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks scored 3.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 19:25TBLN. Kucherov0–1
  2. P2 04:35TBLJ. Guentzel0–2
  3. P2 09:26VANJ. DeBruskPP1–2
  4. P3 04:11VANK. SherwoodPP2–2
  5. P3 04:54VANL. Karlsson3–2
  6. P3 05:51VAND. O'Connor4–2
  7. P3 13:52VANM. MacEachern5–2
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
27 shots
6
Final
76 shots
TBL
49 shots
2
VAN attackTBL attack
VAN TBL Goal
27
shots · 6 in
49
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANTBL
2 / 2
0.96 xG
High danger
0 / 11
2.58 xG
4 / 9
0.98 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.51 xG
0 / 26
0.42 xG
Low
1 / 36
0.76 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 11 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
K. Lankinen
+2.8
VAN · 28/30
F
J. Johansson
−2.6
TBL · 12/17
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

K. Lankinen stands tall as the Canucks edge the Lightning

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 1–13
  1. 19:25TBLN. Kucherov(D. Raddysh, B. Point)0–1
2ndshots 6–6
  1. 04:35TBLJ. Guentzel(E. Cernak, B. Hagel)0–2
  2. 09:26VANJ. DeBruskpower play(E. Pettersson, Q. Hughes)1–2
3rdshots 11–11
  1. 04:11VANK. Sherwoodpower play(B. Boeser, Q. Hughes)2–2
  2. 04:54VANL. Karlsson(M. MacEachern)3–2
  3. 05:51VAND. O'Connor(Q. Hughes, F. Hronek)4–2
  4. 13:52VANM. MacEachern(F. Hronek, Q. Hughes)5–2
  5. 16:57VANM. Petterssonempty net(E. Pettersson, T. Myers)6–2

score reads VAN–TBL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.36
VAN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.129
VAN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
38.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.36Expected goals4.84
TBL 67% of the chance quality
18Shots on goal30
2High-danger chances11
37All attempts (Corsi)60
Adjusted for score: VAN 38% · TBL 62%
Faceoffs · TBL won52%off50%neu39%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN2 / 2 · 0.96 xG
TBL0 / 11 · 2.58 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN4 / 9 · 0.98 xG
TBL1 / 13 · 1.51 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 26 · 0.42 xG
TBL1 / 36 · 0.76 xG

VAN went 4-for-9 from medium danger on 0.98 expected goals — 3.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
6 G · 2.36 xG · +3.6
TBL
2 G · 4.84 xG · -2.8
01234567

VAN finished +3.6 against expected, TBL -2.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
SNAP1/14
TIP IN4/6
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/0
WRIST1/5
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/10
TBL
SNAP0/27
TIP IN1/6
SLAP1/6
BACKHAND0/7
WRIST0/0
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/11
VAN
TBL
Off the rush
4 G on 17
1.27 xG
2 G on 29
3.05 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 6
0.91 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VAN went 1-for-14, TBL 0-for-27. VAN scored 4 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
K. Lankinen
VAN · 28/30 · .933
+2.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/112.6+2.6
Medium1/131.5+0.5
Low1/360.8-0.2

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

J. Johansson
TBL · 12/17 · .706
-2.6
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/21.0-1.0
Medium4/91.0-3.0
Low0/260.4+0.4

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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
27 shots
6
Final
76 shots
TBL
49 shots
2
VAN attackTBL attack
VAN TBL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · VAN
0 G · 4 A · 4 SOG · 23:48 on ice · +1
F. Hronek
#17 · D · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 21:23 on ice · +1
E. Pettersson
#40 · C · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:52 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Nov 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:20 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 2.2–2.9 goal Lightning victory with Tampa Bay at 61% win probability. That lean rests on one foundation: the Lightning control the underlying play.

Tampa Bay owns 54.0% 5v5 expected goals against Vancouver's 44.0%. They dictate possession at 53.0% Corsi, meaning the Lightning will spend the night in Canuck territory. Vancouver enters the game already wounded: -8 goal differential over its last 10, while Tampa Bay has surged to 8-2-0 in the same span.

But there's a macro wrinkle. The Lightning are running at 1.019 PDO—hot enough to expect regression. Vancouver sits at 0.974, cold enough to deserve positive regression back toward the mean. The 54.0% xG and 53.0% Corsi advantage remain real even if the PDO compression narrows the margin.

The goaltending matchup adds friction. A. Vasilevskiy faces a back-to-back, as does K. Lankinen. Both could see backup time, or both could start fatigued. Neither scenario favors the favorites.

Brandon Hagel leads Tampa Bay's charge: 1.10 xG/60 at 15.8% shooting on 23 goals. He's the razor's edge—when he's clicking, the Lightning finish plays the models predict. Anthony Cirelli, riding 17.0% shooting, sits at 0.95 xG/60 with 5 high-danger goals. Vancouver's Filip Chytil poses the counter-threat: 3 goals on 15.0% shooting, though his 1.03 xG/60 trails Hagel's production rate. Drew O'Connor has 13 goals on 11.8% shooting (0.85 xG/60), a secondary threat built on conversion over volume.

Victor Mancini represents Vancouver's defensive weak link. Victor Hedman carries that burden for Tampa Bay. In a tight game—and even the model's lean to Tampa Bay still has Vancouver within striking distance—these pairings could tip the balance.

The model favors Tampa Bay because they've earned it in play volume and efficiency. The Lightning's territorial control and expected-goal edge suggest they'll get chances. If Vancouver gets lucky, that could close the gap the underlying play has opened. If Tampa Bay converts at a sustainable rate instead of 1.019, they'll still be operating ahead of the opponent.

Tampa Bay's form—8-2-0—gives them momentum the numbers validate. That's the bet the 61% probability encodes.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 61%
61%
TBL
Model favorite
39%
61%
VAN50TBL

TBL by 22 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.3–2.9 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
VAN← edge
edge →TBL
44.0%54.0%
46.0%53.0%
2.222.67
2.812.28
1.602.38
2.561.85
0.9741.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 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
VAN
4-4-2
-8 GD · 1d rest
TBL
8-2-0
+9 GD · 1d rest
0.974
VAN 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 44.0%.
  • 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 Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • 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.
  • K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Lightning are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
  • The Canucks are underwater at -8 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
VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
back-to-back.895 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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.957 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
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% 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