Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · NJD at TBL

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Devils

FinalTue, Nov 18

NJDNew Jersey Devils1 TBLTampa Bay Lightning5

The verdict · coin flip

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

NJD 1 · TBL 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:36 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

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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 18

NJD

TBL

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Devils

Chances 4.0 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Lightning took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

NJD

4.04

TBL

3.89

51% of the chances49%

The board read NJD 1, TBL 5. The chances read NJD 4.0, TBL 3.9.

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

Luck check

TBL

+1.1

goals above expected

TBL3.89 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

NJD4.04 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Devils left 3.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 11:40TBLJ. Guentzel0–1
P1 19:38TBLN. Kucherov0–2
P2 10:38TBLJ. GuentzelPP0–3
P2 17:47NJDN. Hischier1–3
P3 04:49TBLD. Raddysh1–4
P3 07:48TBLJ. GuentzelPP1–5

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

Where the shots came from

NJD

47 shots

Final

90 shots

TBL

43 shots

NJD TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

NJDTBL

1 / 6

1.55 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.20 xG

0 / 15

1.78 xG

Medium

3 / 23

2.31 xG

0 / 33

0.71 xG

Low

1 / 27

0.37 xG

High-danger looks: NJD 1 of 6, TBL 1 of 5.

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

In the net

A+

A. Vasilevskiy

+3.0

TBL · 31/32

D-

J. Markstrom

−1.1

NJD · 24/29

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Devils

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 14–7

11:40TBLJ. Guentzel0–1
19:38TBLN. Kucherov(A. Cirelli)0–2

2ndshots 13–10

10:38TBLJ. Guentzelpower play(D. Raddysh, O. Bjorkstrand)0–3
17:47NJDN. Hischier(A. Gritsyuk, J. Bratt)1–3

3rdshots 5–12

04:49TBLD. Raddysh(B. Point, J. Moser)1–4
07:48TBLJ. Guentzelpower play(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)1–5

score reads NJD–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.89

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.072

TBL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.04Expected goals3.89

NJD 51% of the chance quality

32Shots on goal29

6High-danger chances5

54All attempts (Corsi)55

Adjusted for score: NJD 56% · TBL 44%

Faceoffs · TBL won33%off53%neu47%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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

NJD finished -3.0 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

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

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. Markstrom

NJD · 24/29 · .828

-1.1

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium3/232.3-0.7

Low1/270.4-0.6

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 · 31/32 · .969

+3.0

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.6+0.6

Medium0/151.8+1.8

Low0/330.7+0.7

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

NJD

47 shots

Final

90 shots

TBL

43 shots

NJD TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD 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

D. Raddysh

#43 · D · TBL

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 24:13 on ice

J. Guentzel

#59 · C · TBL

3 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 18:09 on ice · +2

N. Kucherov

#86 · R · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:07 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Nov 18

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:45 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 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.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 56%

56%

TBL

Model favorite

44%

56%

NJD50TBL

TBL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 2.4–2.7 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

NJD← edge

edge →TBL

50.0%54.0%

51.0%53.0%

2.452.67

2.502.28

1.662.38

2.231.85

0.9711.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 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

NJD

6-3-1

-3 GD · 2d rest

TBL

7-3-0

+4 GD · 2d rest

0.971

NJD 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%.

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

NJD

Expected in goal

J. Allen

2 days rest.935 last start

Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL

Expected in goal

J. Johansson

2 days rest.706 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page