Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · EDM at TBL

Lightning edge the Oilers in overtime

Final / OTThu, Nov 20

EDMEdmonton Oilers1 TBLTampa Bay Lightning2

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 1 · TBL 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:59 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

Both teams underperformed their expected goals by similar margins—the Lightning by 2.20 goals, the Oilers by 2.24—yet Tampa Bay still prevailed. In games where chance quality is wasted equally, goaltending and shot precision separate the teams.

The Lightning controlled the game's dangerous opportunities: 56% of expected goals at 5v5 (4.20–3.24), 58% of shot attempts (35–25), and 9 of 15 high-danger chances. They generated 0.075 expected goals per shot compared to Edmonton's 0.055. That quality advantage held up when Jake Guentzel's wrist shot from the slot at 1:43 of overtime ended the game.

Vasilevskiy stopped 24 of 25 shots, overperforming by 2.24 goals on an xGA of 3.24. Pickard kept pace—33 saves on 35 shots, +2.20—but Edmonton's roster couldn't generate enough offense. The Oilers managed zero goals on six high-danger chances, an outlier that won't repeat. They crashed the net three times with nothing to show.

Tampa Bay's rush game was deadlier: two goals on 29 chances. Their five rebound attempts went nowhere, but they had the quality to win anyway.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Nov 20

EDM

TBL

Lightning edge the Oilers in overtime

Chances 3.2 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

EDM

3.24

TBL

4.20

44% of the chances56%

The board read EDM 1, TBL 2. The chances read EDM 3.2, TBL 4.2.

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

Luck check

TBL

−2.2

goals above expected

TBL4.20 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

EDM3.24 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Oilers left 2.2 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 01:32EDMT. Frederic1–0
P3 17:28TBLN. Paul1–1
OT 01:43TBLJ. Guentzel1–2

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

Where the shots came from

EDM

38 shots

Final

83 shots

TBL

45 shots

EDM TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

EDMTBL

0 / 6

1.39 xG

High danger

1 / 9

2.00 xG

1 / 13

1.43 xG

Medium

1 / 13

1.53 xG

0 / 40

0.42 xG

Low

0 / 34

0.68 xG

The Oilers went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

A. Vasilevskiy

+2.2

TBL · 24/25

C. Pickard

+2.2

EDM · 33/35

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning edge the Oilers in overtime

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 11–8

01:32EDMT. Frederic(L. Draisaitl)1–0

2ndshots 7–11no goals

3rdshots 4–14

17:28TBLN. Paul(J. Moser, E. Lilleberg)1–1

OTshots 3–2

01:43TBLJ. Guentzel(D. Raddysh, N. Kucherov)1–2

score reads EDM–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.20

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.2

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.019

TBL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

48.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.24Expected goals4.20

TBL 56% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal35

6High-danger chances9

59All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: EDM 48% · TBL 52%

Faceoffs · TBL won37%off50%neu42%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

EDM0 / 6 · 1.39 xG

TBL1 / 9 · 2.00 xG

Medium dangermid-range

EDM1 / 13 · 1.43 xG

TBL1 / 13 · 1.53 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

EDM0 / 40 · 0.42 xG

TBL0 / 34 · 0.68 xG

EDM went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.39 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

EDM

1 G · 3.24 xG · -2.2

TBL

2 G · 4.20 xG · -2.2

012345

EDM finished -2.2 against expected, TBL -2.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

EDM

WRIST0/17

SNAP1/4

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND0/6

TIP IN0/4

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/21

TBL

WRIST1/10

SNAP0/20

SLAP1/11

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/11

EDM

TBL

Off the rush

1 G on 22

1.82 xG

2 G on 29

2.72 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.59 xG

0 G on 5

1.01 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 0-for-17, TBL 1-for-10. TBL scored 2 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

C. Pickard

EDM · 33/35 · .943

+2.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/92.0+1.0

Medium1/131.5+0.5

Low0/340.7+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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 24/25 · .960

+2.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.4+1.4

Medium1/131.4+0.4

Low0/400.4+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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

EDM

38 shots

Final

83 shots

TBL

45 shots

EDM TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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

0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 27:38 on ice · +1

N. Kucherov

#86 · R · TBL

0 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 23:37 on ice · +1

L. Draisaitl

#29 · C · EDM

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:14 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Nov 20

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:55 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 2.5-to-2.7 expected-goal range with the Lightning at 54% win probability. Barely a favorite in a matchup that reads as a coin flip.

Edmonton's -12 goal differential over their last 10 games reflects underperformance on both ends of the ice. Tampa Bay counters with superior underlying numbers. The Lightning drive 54.0% expected goals at 5v5 against Edmonton's 52.0%; their Corsi edge stretches to 53.0% versus 50.0%. That territorial margin should yield more chances.

Regression math favors Edmonton. Tampa Bay's 1.019 PDO means they're outperforming expectation and due to regress. Edmonton's 0.982 PDO has the inverse path: positive regression looms. The closer each team falls back to mean PDO, the tighter the game becomes.

A. Vasilevskiy faces the back-to-back grind. A fresh backup in net gives Edmonton an edge; a fatigued starter does too.

Players to Watch

Zach Hyman carries Edmonton's scoring at 1.23 expected goals per 60 minutes with 14 goals. Connor McDavid's 0.92 xG per 60 appears modest until you see 25 goals, five high-danger tallies, and a 13.7% shooting rate—he's outperforming model projection through finishing. Brandon Hagel powers Tampa at 1.10 xG per 60 with 23 goals, two high-danger, and 15.8% conversion. Anthony Cirelli finishes at an elite clip: 0.95 xG per 60, 15 goals, five high-danger, and 17.0% shooting.

Jake Walman represents a weakness on Edmonton's back end. Victor Hedman anchors Tampa's defense. Neither team converts from high-danger or rebound chances—both near 0%—so positioning in dirty areas and shot selection will decide the margin.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 54%

54%

TBL

Model favorite

46%

54%

EDM50TBL

TBL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score EDM 2.5–2.7 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

EDM← edge

edge →TBL

52.0%54.0%

50.0%53.0%

2.642.67

2.472.28

2.132.38

2.291.85

0.9821.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 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

EDM

4-4-2

-12 GD · 2d rest

TBL

7-3-0

+7 GD · 1d rest

0.982

EDM 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 drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

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.
The Oilers are underwater at -12 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

EDM

Expected in goal

S. Skinner

2 days rest.852 last start

Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL

Expected in goal

A. Vasilevskiy

back-to-back.969 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

EDM

Zach Hyman14G 13A

1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh

Connor McDavid25G 33A

0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% 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