Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · TBL at WSH

Lightning hold off the Capitals

FinalSat, Nov 22

TBLTampa Bay Lightning5 WSHWashington Capitals3

The verdict · stolen

The Lightning stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.55–4.49 and won anyway.

TBL 5 · WSH 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:18 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 Capitals got heisted. Tampa Bay won 5–3 despite losing the expected-goals battle 4.49–2.55—a 64–36 split in favor of Washington. The Capitals owned 67% of shot attempts and generated 11 high-danger chances to the Lightning's 3. None of it mattered.

This was a goaltending clinic masked as a game. J. Johansson stopped 29 of 32 shots for a 0.906 save percentage, outperforming his expected mark by 1.49 goals. On high-danger chances, he was pristine: 11 for 11 saved. L. Thompson faced just 6 shots and stopped only 2, conceding 3.05 more goals than expected on a 0.333 save percentage that ended the game early. C. Lindgren, his relief, managed better numbers (0.900 SV%, +0.59 against expectation), but arrived too late to matter.

The Lightning exploited space ruthlessly. They converted 3 goals on 19 rush chances—a conversion rate Washington's defense couldn't match. The Capitals' 0-for-11 record on high-danger opportunities explained the disconnect: possessing the puck doesn't translate to wins without finishing in the blue paint.

B. Hagel led the way with two goals and two assists across 19:44. N. Kucherov was surgical in limited time: one goal, two assists in 05:18. J. Chychrun posted a goal and assist in 25:29, but the Lightning's ruthless conversion on the rush proved decisive.

Variance explains the scoreboard. Washington finished with 1.49 fewer goals than expected; Tampa Bay scored 2.45 more. The possession metrics favored Washington. The scoreboard favored Tampa Bay.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 22

TBL

WSH

Lightning hold off the Capitals

Chances 2.5 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Capitals deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

TBL

2.55

WSH

4.49

36% of the chances64%

The board read TBL 5, WSH 3. The chances read TBL 2.5, WSH 4.5.

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

Luck check

TBL

+2.5

goals above expected

TBL2.55 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

WSH4.49 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Lightning scored 2.5 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 01:06WSHJ. Sourdif0–1
P1 02:53TBLB. HagelSH1–1
P1 05:21TBLO. BjorkstrandPP2–1
P1 11:36TBLB. Hagel3–1
P1 18:19TBLN. Kucherov4–1
P2 05:26WSHJ. Chychrun4–2
P3 05:24WSHE. Frank4–3

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

TBL

26 shots

Final

74 shots

WSH

48 shots

TBL WSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TBLWSH

2 / 3

0.87 xG

High danger

0 / 11

2.42 xG

3 / 13

1.37 xG

Medium

1 / 15

1.50 xG

0 / 23

0.31 xG

Low

2 / 46

0.58 xG

The Capitals went 0 for 11 from the slot.

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

In the net

C. Lindgren

+1.6

WSH · 9/10

B+

J. Johansson

+1.5

TBL · 29/32

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning hold off the Capitals

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 6–9

01:06WSHJ. Sourdif(T. Wilson, M. Fehérváry)0–1
02:53TBLB. Hagelshorthanded(A. Cirelli, E. Cernak)1–1
05:21TBLO. Bjorkstrandpower play(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)2–1
11:36TBLB. Hagel(N. Kucherov, J. Moser)3–1
18:19TBLN. Kucherov(B. Hagel, C. D'Astous)4–1

2ndshots 4–11

05:26WSHJ. Chychrun4–2

3rdshots 6–12

05:24WSHE. Frank(S. Milano, J. Chychrun)4–3
15:51TBLA. Cirelli(B. Hagel, J. Guentzel)5–3

score reads TBL–WSH

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.55

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.087

TBL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

35.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.55Expected goals4.49

WSH 64% of the chance quality

16Shots on goal32

3High-danger chances11

39All attempts (Corsi)72

Adjusted for score: TBL 30% · WSH 70%

Faceoffs · WSH won67%off40%neu33%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TBL2 / 3 · 0.87 xG

WSH0 / 11 · 2.42 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TBL3 / 13 · 1.37 xG

WSH1 / 15 · 1.50 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TBL0 / 23 · 0.31 xG

WSH2 / 46 · 0.58 xG

WSH went 0-for-11 from high danger on 2.42 expected goals — 2.4 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TBL

5 G · 2.55 xG · +2.5

WSH

3 G · 4.49 xG · -1.5

0123456

TBL finished +2.5 against expected, WSH -1.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TBL

SNAP3/15

SLAP1/5

TIP IN0/3

WRIST0/0

BACKHAND1/3

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/13

WSH

SNAP2/18

SLAP0/8

TIP IN0/8

WRIST1/11

BACKHAND0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/24

TBL

WSH

Off the rush

3 G on 19

1.66 xG

1 G on 30

3.13 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

1 G on 6

0.94 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 3-for-15, WSH 2-for-18. TBL scored 3 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. Johansson

TBL · 29/32 · .906

+1.5

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/112.4+2.4

Medium1/151.5+0.5

Low2/460.6-1.4

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

L. Thompson

WSH · 2/6 · .333

-1.4

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/30.9-1.1

Medium3/131.4-1.6

Low0/230.3+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

C. Lindgren

WSH · 9/10 · .900

+1.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/30.9-1.1

Medium3/131.4-1.6

Low0/230.3+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

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TBL

26 shots

Final

74 shots

WSH

48 shots

TBL WSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, WSH 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

B. Hagel

#38 · L · TBL

2 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 19:44 on ice · +3

N. Kucherov

#86 · R · TBL

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 05:18 on ice · +1

J. Chychrun

#6 · D · WSH

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:29 on ice · -2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 22

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:15 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 2.6-2.6 game with the Lightning at 51% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. Tampa Bay owns the underlying play but Washington's luck is running hot; goaltending will likely determine the winner.

The Lightning dominate possession metrics: 54.0% 5v5 xG and 53.0% Corsis. They own territorial tilt, which usually translates to wins. Washington has no advantage in expected production and must win via efficiency or goaltending.

Both teams' puck luck is unsustainable. Tampa Bay's PDO sits at 1.019; Washington's at 1.018. That means both are overperforming their expected scoring. Regression matters in a close game. Whichever team gets luckier next will likely win.

Both goaltenders face back-to-back games. C. Lindgren and A. Vasilevskiy could be fatigued or pulled entirely—pay attention to warmups.

Brandon Hagel is Tampa's engine. He's shooting 15.8% on 1.10 xG/60 with 23 goals and 2 high-danger looks, pairing elite shot volume with elite efficiency. Anthony Cirelli (0.95 xG/60, 5 HD goals, 17.0% shooting) compounds the pressure. Washington must neutralize both.

Alex Ovechkin remains dangerous despite limited volume. He's at 0.97 xG/60 with 19 goals and a 13.8% shooting rate—still one of the league's deadliest finishers. Anthony Beauvillier (0.89 xG/60, 10.4% shooting) gives the Capitals a second cutting threat.

Tampa's defensive liability is Victor Hedman. Washington's is Declan Chisholm. Both teams are vulnerable to skilled attackers on the perimeter. Hagel's shot volume and Ovechkin's placement will likely decide which defense cracks first.

Neither team is generating high-danger looks at the rate expected—both at 0% for HD and rebound conversion. This suggests goaltending and efficiency matter more than chaos. The game will be decided by execution, not luck, despite both teams running hot.

This is a true toss-up. The Lightning have the better underlying play. Washington has slightly better luck. The goalies, the matchups, and shot placement will determine who leaves with two points.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 51%

51%

TBL

Model favorite

51%

49%

TBL50WSH

TBL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.6 WSH; 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

TBL← edge

edge →WSH

54.0%50.0%

53.0%49.0%

2.672.62

2.282.62

2.382.18

1.851.79

1.0191.018

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.018) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TBL

7-3-0

+5 GD · 1d rest

WSH

5-3-2

+8 GD · 1d rest

1.019

TBL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.018

WSH 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%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
C. Lindgren is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Vasilevskiy is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TBL

Expected in goal

A. Vasilevskiy

back-to-back.960 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.

WSH

Expected in goal

C. Lindgren

back-to-back.857 last start

Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 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.

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

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

WSH

Alex Ovechkin19G 17A

0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh

Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A

0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page