Backcheck
Recap · NJD at TBL

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Devils

The Lightning won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

By the ModelJul 11, 4:36 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
NJD
New Jersey Devils
1
Home
TBL
Tampa Bay Lightning
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.04Expected goals3.89
51% share for the better side
32Shot attempts (SOG)29
6High-danger chances5
54Corsi (all attempts)55
Score-adjusted: 56% / 44%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Tampa Bay demolished New Jersey 5-1, masking a closer underlying game: the Devils held the xG edge at 4.04–3.89, yet the Lightning converted ruthlessly while New Jersey squandered chances.

The gulf came down to goaltending. A. Vasilevskiy posted a 0.969 save percentage (+3.04 goals above expected), while J. Markstrom managed 24 of 29 shots (0.828 SV%, -1.11 vs expected). The Devils underperformed their underlying volume—a rarity for Markstrom.

The Lightning's efficiency was striking: five high-danger chances to the Devils' six, yet four goals on 33 rush attempts and 2 power-play goals on 13 shots (1.34 xG). Shot volume barely separated them (29–32 on goal, 48% Lightning), but Tampa Bay capitalized where New Jersey couldn't.

D. Raddysh orchestrated the attack with 1 goal and 2 assists (24:13), while J. Guentzel scored 3 goals in 18:09, including a doorstep tip-in at 7:48. N. Kucherov added 1 goal and 1 assist (22:07), completing the trio that overwhelmed New Jersey's defense.

New Jersey generated the better underlying process—higher xG, more high-danger chances—yet execution and goaltending variance determined the outcome. This was a case study in how elite save rates and power-play discipline override process.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD1 / 6 · 1.55 xG
TBL1 / 5 · 1.20 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD0 / 15 · 1.78 xG
TBL3 / 23 · 2.31 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD0 / 33 · 0.71 xG
TBL1 / 27 · 0.37 xG

NJD went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.78 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
1 G · 4.04 xG · -3.0
TBL
5 G · 3.89 xG · +1.1
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. MarkstromNJD
-1.1
A. VasilevskiyTBL
+3.0

NJD finished -3.0 against expected, TBL +1.1 — A. Vasilevskiy (TBL) saved 3.0 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
SNAP0/15
WRIST0/11
TIP IN0/10
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED1/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/7
TBL
SNAP0/13
WRIST1/11
TIP IN2/7
SLAP2/6
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/12
NJD
TBL
Off the rush
0 G on 32 · 2.74 xG
4 G on 33 · 3.35 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1 · 0.20 xG
0 G on 2 · 0.21 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: NJD went 0-for-15, TBL 0-for-13. TBL scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
D. Raddysh
#43 · D · TBL
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 24:13 TOI
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
3 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 18:09 TOI · +2
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:07 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • A. Vasilevskiy (TBL) stopped 3.0 goals above expected.
  • J. Markstrom (NJD) gave up 1.1 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • TBL was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 33 rush chances.
  • NJD underperformed xG by 3.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • A. Vasilevskiy (TBL) saved 3.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • TBL power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 13 PP shots (1.34 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · NJD at TBL · 7:00 PM ET

The Lightning are the model's lean over the Devils — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 11, 4:45 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

56%
TBL
Model favorite
44%
56%
NJD50TBL

TBL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 2.42.7 TBL; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

NJD← edge
edge →TBL
50.0%5v5 xG%54.0%
51.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.45xGF / 602.67
2.50xGA / 602.28
1.66Goals for / gm2.38
2.23Goals against / gm1.85
0.971PDO — luck, not skill1.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.971 vs 1.019) says TBL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a NJD 2.4–2.7 TBL game with the Lightning at 56% win probability. This lean rests on underlying play.

Tampa Bay owns the 5v5 metrics: 54.0% expected goals and 53.0% Corsi dominate New Jersey's 50.0% xG and 51.0% Corsi. The Lightning generate higher-quality chances and control possession.

Regression threatens both teams' current trajectories. The Lightning's 1.019 PDO is unsustainable; cool-down is coming. New Jersey's 0.971 PDO means they've underperformed their chances; positive variance should follow. When shooting luck and goaltending efficiency normalize toward league average, expect the projected margin to narrow.

Players to Watch

New Jersey Devils

  • Timo Meier — 1.08 xG/60, 13G 15A, 3 HD goals, 6.7% shooting
  • Jack Hughes — 0.88 xG/60, 18G 17A, 1 HD goals, 11.5% shooting

Tampa Bay Lightning

  • Brandon Hagel — 1.10 xG/60, 23G 26A, 2 HD goals, 15.8% shooting
  • Anthony Cirelli — 0.95 xG/60, 15G 18A, 5 HD goals, 17.0% shooting

For the Devils, Meier and Hughes drive the offense. The Lightning counter with Hagel and Cirelli. Defensively, Victor Hedman and Johnathan Kovacevic represent weak points for their respective teams.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters