Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater

Breakdown · FLA at NSH

Panthers pull away from the Predators

FinalMon, Nov 24

FLAFlorida Panthers8 NSHNashville Predators3

The verdict · coin flip

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

FLA 8 · NSH 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:29 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 Panthers dominated the scoreboard but not the underlying play. Expected goals split 3.12–3.11 in Nashville's favor, yet Florida won 8–3—a 4.89-goal overperformance that masks how close this game actually was.

The Predators controlled volume: 60% of shot attempts (39–26). But volume without precision is noise. Each team recorded five high-danger chances; Nashville converted two. Florida's scoring came from lower-probability areas—three goals from low-danger spots where better goaltending stops them. The gap in shot quality: Florida averaged 0.076 expected goals per shot; Nashville, 0.046.

Goaltending accelerated the gap. J. Annunen (NSH) gave up 1.8 goals above expected in limited work. J. Saros yielded 3.09 more than expected. D. Tarasov (FLA) stopped 36 of 39 and played cleanly behind a team that outhustled Nashville in the soft areas—the rebounds and the rush.

Florida buried five goals off rush chances across 22 attempts. Nashville cycled the puck well enough to create three rebound opportunities but converted only one. When a team wins the rebound battle 4-to-1 on the conversion side, the goal differential follows.

The tide turned early. Carter Verhaeghe's backhander from the doorstep at 12:49 of the third period sealed it, though by then the outcome was already written in the xG gulf—not the scoreline, but the execution. Florida had the angles. Nashville had the volume. One mattered more.

S. Reinhart (FLA) notched 1G, 2A in 17:21. C. Verhaeghe (FLA) added 1G, 2A in 16:08. A. Greer (FLA) scored twice with an assist in 15:42.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 24

FLA

NSH

Panthers pull away from the Predators

Chances 3.1 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Panthers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

3.11

NSH

3.12

50% of the chances50%

The board read FLA 8, NSH 3. The chances read FLA 3.1, NSH 3.1.

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

Luck check

FLA

+4.9

goals above expected

FLA3.11 expected · 8 scored

Expected

Scored

NSH3.12 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Panthers scored 4.9 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 00:11FLAA. Greer1–0
P1 05:42FLAE. Rodrigues2–0
P1 06:52NSHF. Forsberg2–1
P1 10:32NSHF. Svechkov2–2
P1 11:31FLAJ. Boqvist3–2
P1 15:46FLAS. Bennett4–2
P2 01:24FLAG. Forsling5–2

+4 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

FLA

35 shots

Final

84 shots

NSH

49 shots

FLA NSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 8 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLANSH

1 / 5

1.21 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.07 xG

4 / 10

1.22 xG

Medium

0 / 11

1.19 xG

3 / 26

0.68 xG

Low

1 / 51

0.86 xG

High-danger looks: FLA 1 of 5, NSH 2 of 5.

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

In the net

D. Tarasov

+0.1

FLA · 36/39

J. Annunen

+0.1

NSH · 7/10

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Panthers pull away from the Predators

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 15–13

00:11FLAA. Greer(C. Verhaeghe, S. Jones)1–0
05:42FLAE. Rodrigues(U. Balinskis, S. Reinhart)2–0
06:52NSHF. Forsberg(L. Evangelista, R. Josi)2–1
10:32NSHF. Svechkov(O. Wiesblatt, T. Jost)2–2
11:31FLAJ. Boqvist(G. Forsling, S. Reinhart)3–2
15:46FLAS. Bennett4–2

2ndshots 4–13

01:24FLAG. Forsling(M. Samoskevich, B. Marchand)5–2

3rdshots 7–13

02:11NSHN. Blankenburgpower play(M. Bunting, E. Haula)5–3
04:52FLAA. Greer(C. Verhaeghe, U. Balinskis)6–3
08:33FLAS. Reinhart(E. Rodrigues, A. Ekblad)7–3
12:49FLAC. Verhaeghe(A. Greer)8–3

score reads FLA–NSH

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.11

FLA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+4.9

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.150

FLA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

38.0%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.11Expected goals3.12

NSH 50% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal39

5High-danger chances5

41All attempts (Corsi)67

Adjusted for score: FLA 32% · NSH 68%

Faceoffs · NSH won64%off56%neu55%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA1 / 5 · 1.21 xG

NSH2 / 5 · 1.07 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA4 / 10 · 1.22 xG

NSH0 / 11 · 1.19 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA3 / 26 · 0.68 xG

NSH1 / 51 · 0.86 xG

FLA went 4-for-10 from medium danger on 1.22 expected goals — 2.8 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

8 G · 3.11 xG · +4.9

NSH

3 G · 3.12 xG · -0.1

0123456789

FLA finished +4.9 against expected, NSH -0.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

WRIST4/18

SNAP1/6

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND1/3

DEFLECTED2/4

TIP IN0/1

OTHER0/6

NSH

WRIST2/26

SNAP0/8

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/5

DEFLECTED1/1

TIP IN0/4

OTHER0/18

FLA

NSH

Off the rush

5 G on 22

1.98 xG

1 G on 30

1.66 xG

Off rebounds

3 G on 4

0.70 xG

1 G on 3

0.56 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 4-for-18, NSH 2-for-26. 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

D. Tarasov

FLA · 36/39 · .923

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.1-0.9

Medium0/111.2+1.2

Low1/510.9-0.1

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

J. Annunen

NSH · 7/10 · .700

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium4/101.2-2.8

Low3/260.7-2.3

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

J. Saros

NSH · 11/16 · .688

-1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium4/101.2-2.8

Low3/260.7-2.3

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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

35 shots

Final

84 shots

NSH

49 shots

FLA NSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, NSH 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

S. Reinhart

#13 · C · FLA

1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 17:21 on ice · +1

C. Verhaeghe

#23 · C · FLA

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:08 on ice · +4

A. Greer

#10 · L · FLA

2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:42 on ice · +5

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Nov 24

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:28 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 2.5–2.6 goal margin with Nashville favored at 52% win probability. This is essentially a coin flip.

Florida enters hotter, going 6-4-0 over their last ten games. Nashville, meanwhile, sits at -15 goal differential across the same span, a gap that belies their possession parity: both teams own 49.0% expected goal shares at five-on-five. Florida's 52.0% Corsi% edges Nashville's 50.0%, and their respective PDO figures—0.989 and 0.992—suggest comparable puck luck.

Goaltending adds uncertainty. Both J. Saros and D. Tarasov work back-to-backs, creating the risk of limited minutes or a tired starter workload in net.

Florida's advantage rests with Sam Bennett, who operates at 0.97 xG/60 with 18 goals and 19 assists while maintaining a 13.1% shooting percentage across six high-danger chances. Brad Marchand supplies secondary scoring at 0.93 xG/60, registering 17 goals and 9 assists, though his 19.5% shooting rate (3 high-danger goals) suggests unsustainable volume.

Nashville's firepower centers on Filip Forsberg, a 23-goal scorer averaging 0.80 xG/60 with 17 assists and four high-danger tallies at a 13.6% clip. Zachary L'Heureux represents emerging depth, recording 0.85 xG/60 despite just four goals and zero assists, with one high-danger marker suggesting future variance. Jonathan Marchessault rounds out offensive depth while carrying defensive liability.

The gap between these teams is negligible. Florida's recent momentum barely outweighs Nashville's structural possession advantages. With both starting goalies facing fatigue and each roster offering complementary yet incomplete scoring profiles, treat this one as genuinely pick'em.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NSH 52%

52%

NSH

Model favorite

48%

52%

FLA50NSH

NSH by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 2.5–2.6 NSH; 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

FLA← edge

edge →NSH

49.0%49.0%

52.0%50.0%

2.482.48

2.562.58

1.981.84

2.212.21

0.9890.992

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.992) says NSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

FLA

6-4-0

+1 GD · 1d rest

NSH

2-6-2

-15 GD · 1d rest

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.992

NSH PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

J. Saros is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
D. Tarasov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Panthers are the hotter team by points pace (6-4-0 in their last 10).
The Predators are underwater at -15 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

FLA

Expected in goal

D. Tarasov

back-to-back1.000 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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.

NSH

Expected in goal

J. Saros

back-to-back.958 last start

Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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

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

NSH

Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A

0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh

Filip Forsberg23G 17A

0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page