Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater

Breakdown · VAN at FLA

Panthers run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Nov 17

VANVancouver Canucks5 FLAFlorida Panthers8

The verdict · earned

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

VAN 5 · FLA 8

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:28 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 underlying play was lopsided — Florida controlled 73% of shot attempts (41–15 at 5v5) and 65% of expected goals (4.95–2.66). The 8-5 scoreline belongs to variance. The Panthers overperformed their xG by 3.05 goals; Vancouver overperformed theirs by 2.34. Both teams won on luck.

Florida's true edge came from efficiency. They generated 0.071 expected goals per shot versus Vancouver's 0.050 — a gap that mattered when high-danger chances stayed tight (8–7 to Florida). Better looks converted better.

The rush game split the difference. Florida scored 5 on 33 rush chances; Vancouver scored 4 on 18. The Canucks were more efficient per attempt, but the Panthers' volume advantage mattered more.

Goaltending played no role in the outcome. J. Patera allowed 2.1 goals more than expected; S. Bobrovsky allowed 2.34 more. Both faced workload spikes their underlying metrics didn't predict.

Florida's power play was the true differentiator: 2 goals on 15 power-play shots, well above the 1.09 xG those looks generated. That conversion rate turned a close underlying matchup into a definitive result.

The Panthers won by imposing volume, efficiency, and power-play execution. The Canucks lost because they couldn't match the shot volume, and variance at both ends kept them closer than their xG suggested.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 17

VAN

FLA

Panthers run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.7 – 5.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

VAN

2.66

FLA

4.95

35% of the chances65%

The board read VAN 5, FLA 8. The chances read VAN 2.7, FLA 5.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

FLA

+3.0

goals above expected

FLA4.95 expected · 8 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN2.66 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

The Panthers scored 3.0 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 14:50VAND. O'Connor1–0
P1 15:14VANJ. DeBruskPP2–0
P1 15:50FLAA. Greer2–1
P1 19:52FLAS. JonesPP2–2
P2 02:23FLAL. Kunin2–3
P2 06:10FLAE. Rodrigues2–4
P2 07:17FLAA. Lundell2–5

+6 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

VAN

30 shots

Final

82 shots

FLA

52 shots

VAN FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 8 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

VANFLA

4 / 7

1.69 xG

High danger

2 / 8

2.39 xG

1 / 5

0.51 xG

Medium

5 / 16

1.86 xG

0 / 41

0.46 xG

Low

1 / 46

0.69 xG

The Panthers buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

J. Patera

−2.0

VAN · 33/40

S. Bobrovsky

−2.3

FLA · 10/15

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Panthers run the Canucks 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 5–11

14:50VAND. O'Connor(T. Myers, Q. Hughes)1–0
15:14VANJ. DeBruskpower play(K. Sherwood, Q. Hughes)2–0
15:50FLAA. Greer(C. Verhaeghe, S. Bennett)2–1
19:52FLAS. Jonespower play(S. Reinhart, S. Bobrovsky)2–2

2ndshots 4–16

02:23FLAL. Kunin(N. Gregor, G. Forsling)2–3
06:10FLAE. Rodrigues(S. Reinhart, J. Boqvist)2–4
07:17FLAA. Lundell(B. Marchand, A. Ekblad)2–5
07:55VANE. Pettersson(E. Kane, Q. Hughes)3–5

3rdshots 6–14

01:24VANE. Pettersson(K. Sherwood, T. Willander)4–5
03:14VANF. Hronekpower play(M. Sasson, E. Kane)5–5
04:02FLAS. Bennett(N. Mikkola, U. Balinskis)5–6
08:19FLAS. Jonespower play(S. Reinhart, C. Verhaeghe)5–7
18:14FLAB. Marchandempty net5–8

score reads VAN–FLA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.95

FLA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+3.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.020

FLA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

56.9%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.66Expected goals4.95

FLA 65% of the chance quality

15Shots on goal41

7High-danger chances8

53All attempts (Corsi)70

Adjusted for score: VAN 47% · FLA 53%

Faceoffs · FLA won63%off29%neu52%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

VAN4 / 7 · 1.69 xG

FLA2 / 8 · 2.39 xG

Medium dangermid-range

VAN1 / 5 · 0.51 xG

FLA5 / 16 · 1.86 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

VAN0 / 41 · 0.46 xG

FLA1 / 46 · 0.69 xG

FLA went 5-for-16 from medium danger on 1.86 expected goals — 3.1 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

VAN

5 G · 2.66 xG · +2.3

FLA

8 G · 4.95 xG · +3.0

0123456789

VAN finished +2.3 against expected, FLA +3.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

VAN

SNAP2/19

WRIST2/2

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND1/2

POKE0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/23

FLA

SNAP5/16

WRIST2/23

SLAP0/6

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND0/2

POKE0/0

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/18

VAN

FLA

Off the rush

4 G on 18

1.76 xG

5 G on 33

3.96 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.75 xG

0 G on 1

0.07 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VAN went 2-for-19, FLA 5-for-16. FLA scored 5 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. Patera

VAN · 33/40 · .825

-2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/82.4+0.4

Medium5/161.9-3.1

Low1/460.7-0.3

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

S. Bobrovsky

FLA · 10/15 · .667

-2.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger4/71.7-2.3

Medium1/50.5-0.5

Low0/410.5+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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

VAN

30 shots

Final

82 shots

FLA

52 shots

VAN FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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

Q. Hughes

#43 · D · VAN

0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 29:39 on ice

S. Reinhart

#13 · C · FLA

0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 24:41 on ice · +1

S. Jones

#3 · D · FLA

2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 24:23 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Nov 17

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:26 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 2.4–2.8 goal outcome favoring Florida, putting the Panthers at 57% win probability. That edge rests on dominant underlying play—one that the Canucks' goaltending and variance cannot indefinitely sustain.

The Panthers control the territorial battle. They generate 49.0% of expected goals at 5v5 against Vancouver's 44.0%, and hold a 52.0% Corsi share. This isn't noise; it reflects consistent dominance in shot volume and shot quality. Florida enters with a 0.989 PDO, suggesting efficient goaltending or good fortune, but anchored to real play.

Vancouver carries two vulnerabilities. They're underwater at minus-5 in goal differential over their last 10 games—the kind of hole that compounds. More pressingly, their 0.974 PDO signals regression risk. The Canucks are running cold and due to regress upward, but that relief rarely arrives on schedule, especially against a team running hot in both underlying metrics and outcomes.

K. Lankinen sits on a back-to-back, complicating Florida's equation. A tired starter or a backup appearance could blunt the Panthers' edge, but the model doesn't seem to account for that variance.

Players to Watch

VAN

Filip Chytil — 1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 1 HD goal, 15.0% shooting
Drew O'Connor — 0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting

FLA

Sam Bennett — 0.97 xG/60, 18G 19A, 6 HD goals, 13.1% shooting
Brad Marchand — 0.93 xG/60, 17G 9A, 3 HD goals, 19.5% shooting

The math favors Florida's depth and underlying efficiency, but Vancouver's PDO floor creates a path to outperformance. That collision point—regression and variance—is where the real game lives.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 57%

57%

FLA

Model favorite

43%

57%

VAN50FLA

FLA by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VAN 2.4–2.8 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

VAN← edge

edge →FLA

44.0%49.0%

46.0%52.0%

2.222.48

2.812.56

1.601.98

2.562.21

0.9740.989

FLA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 0.989) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

VAN

4-4-2

-5 GD · 1d rest

FLA

5-4-1

+0 GD · 2d rest

0.974

VAN 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 Panthers own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Panthers own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Canucks are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

VAN

Expected in goal

K. Lankinen

back-to-back.933 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.

FLA

Expected in goal

S. Bobrovsky

2 days rest.895 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

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

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