Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Wed, Nov 26 · the slate
Breakdown · CGY at TBL

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Flames

FinalWed, Nov 26
CGYCalgary Flames1TBLTampa Bay Lightning5
The verdict · stolen

The Lightning stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 5.10–3.55 and won anyway.

CGY 1 · TBL 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:03 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 Lightning's 5-1 scoreline belies a decisive statistical beatdown: Calgary owned 59% of expected goals at 5v5, 5.10 to 3.55, and held 42% of shot attempts across 32 to 23. The Flames were the better team by analytics. They weren't better at hockey.

A. Vasilevskiy stopped that story dead. The Lightning's goaltender saved 31 of 32 shots—a 0.969 save percentage—and finished 4.10 goals above expected. Against a team generating 0.081 expected goals per shot (to Tampa's 0.059), he was unbeatable.

Calgary's goaltending split the work differently. D. Cooley faced 19 shots and allowed one, posting a 0.895 save percentage while stopping 0.93 goals above expected. D. Wolf inherited a 4-shot situation and crumbled: 1 save, 0.250 percentage, 2.38 goals surrendered above expectation. By the time Wolf arrived, Tampa had control.

The Lightning struck from angles that shouldn't score. Four goals came from low-danger spots—the kind opponents need their goalie to steal. On rush chances, Tampa executed with brutal efficiency: 4 goals on 24 opportunities. Calgary's high-danger looks (9 total) were sharper but went unconverted. The Flames finished 0-for-9.

At 14:23 of the third period, Nikita Kucherov's snap shot from the doorstep widened Tampa's margin. It crystallized the gulf between stats and results: the team that should have won couldn't execute.

In the analytics era, this scoreline reminds us that goaltending still decides games. Calgary was the more dangerous team. A. Vasilevskiy made sure it didn't matter.

Three Stars

  • #59 J. Guentzel (TBL) — 2A in 21:21
  • #38 B. Hagel (TBL) — 1G, 1A in 20:11
  • #86 N. Kucherov (TBL) — 1G, 1A in 17:28
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 26
CGY
1
TBL
5

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Flames

Chances 5.1 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Flames deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
5.10
TBL
3.55
59% of the chances41%

The board read CGY 1, TBL 5. The chances read CGY 5.1, TBL 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+1.4
goals above expected
TBL3.55 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY5.10 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flames left 4.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:39TBLB. Hagel0–1
  2. P1 01:26TBLC. D'Astous0–2
  3. P1 05:52TBLZ. Girgensons0–3
  4. P1 10:01TBLD. Carlile0–4
  5. P3 01:04CGYJ. FarabeeSH1–4
  6. P3 14:23TBLN. Kucherov1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
46 shots
1
Final
87 shots
TBL
41 shots
5
CGY attackTBL attack
CGY TBL Goal
46
shots · 1 in
41
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYTBL
0 / 9
2.32 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.42 xG
0 / 21
2.38 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.39 xG
1 / 33
0.40 xG
Low
4 / 44
0.74 xG

The Flames went 0 for 9 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Vasilevskiy
+4.1
TBL · 31/32
A
D. Cooley
+1.6
CGY · 17/19
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Flames

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 5–10
  1. 00:39TBLB. Hagel(A. Cirelli, N. Kucherov)0–1
  2. 01:26TBLC. D'Astous(N. Paul, J. Guentzel)0–2
  3. 05:52TBLZ. Girgensons(Y. Gourde, P. Holmberg)0–3
  4. 10:01TBLD. Carlile(S. Santini, J. Guentzel)0–4
2ndshots 9–9no goals
    3rdshots 18–4
    1. 01:04CGYJ. Farabeeshorthanded(J. Beecher, Y. Kuznetsov)1–4
    2. 14:23TBLN. Kucherov(B. Hagel, D. Raddysh)1–5

    score reads CGY–TBL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.55
    TBL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.4
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.067
    TBL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    48.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.10Expected goals3.55
    CGY 59% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal23
    9High-danger chances5
    63All attempts (Corsi)60
    Adjusted for score: CGY 59% · TBL 41%
    Faceoffs · TBL won64%off47%neu55%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CGY0 / 9 · 2.32 xG
    TBL1 / 5 · 1.42 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CGY0 / 21 · 2.38 xG
    TBL0 / 11 · 1.39 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CGY1 / 33 · 0.40 xG
    TBL4 / 44 · 0.74 xG

    TBL went 4-for-44 from low danger on 0.74 expected goals — 3.3 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CGY
    1 G · 5.10 xG · -4.1
    TBL
    5 G · 3.55 xG · +1.4
    0123456

    CGY finished -4.1 against expected, TBL +1.4.

    Source · Backcheck xG model
    Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
    What they shot — and what went in

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CGY
    SNAP0/34
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/5
    WRIST1/2
    TIP IN0/2
    OTHER0/17
    TBL
    SNAP2/22
    SLAP1/9
    BACKHAND0/2
    WRIST2/5
    TIP IN0/3
    OTHER0/19
    CGY
    TBL
    Off the rush
    1 G on 26
    3.16 xG
    4 G on 24
    2.04 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 6
    1.25 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.59 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: CGY went 0-for-34, TBL 2-for-22. 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
    D. Cooley
    CGY · 17/19 · .895
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.4+0.4
    Medium0/111.4+1.4
    Low4/440.7-3.3

    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

    D. Wolf
    CGY · 1/4 · .250
    +0.6
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.4+0.4
    Medium0/111.4+1.4
    Low4/440.7-3.3

    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

    A. Vasilevskiy
    TBL · 31/32 · .969
    +4.1
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/92.3+2.3
    Medium0/212.4+2.4
    Low1/330.4-0.6

    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

    87 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CGY
    46 shots
    1
    Final
    87 shots
    TBL
    41 shots
    5
    CGY attackTBL attack
    CGY TBL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY 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
    J. Guentzel
    #59 · C · TBL
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:21 on ice · +1
    B. Hagel
    #38 · L · TBL
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:11 on ice · +2
    N. Kucherov
    #86 · R · TBL
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:28 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Nov 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:36 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 2.3-2.8 Lightning victory with Tampa Bay at 58% win probability. The edge isn't accidental—it tracks the underlying play.

    Tampa Bay dominates 5v5 shot quality: 54.0% expected goals against Calgary's 47.0%. That translates to territorial control—the Lightning are generating 53.0% Corsi, a mark that forecasts sustained possession. Calgary will spend the night chasing.

    But regression lurks in the numbers. Tampa Bay's 1.019 PDO is unsustainably hot; downward regression toward mean is inevitable. Calgary's 0.985 runs cold, primed for the opposite move. Regression won't erase the Lightning's edge but will narrow it.

    A. Vasilevskiy faces a back-to-back. The Lightning may start him anyway, but fatigue is invisible to the model—watch the warmup.

    Players to Watch

    Calgary

    • Blake Coleman: 0.89 xG/60, 16G 12A, 2 HD goals, 11.4% shooting
    • Matt Coronato: 0.80 xG/60, 10G 16A, 6.6% shooting

    Tampa Bay

    • 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

    Both Calgary and Tampa miss clean opportunities—0% high-danger and rebound goal rates for both teams flag a disconnect between shot quality and finish. Watch Calgary's defensive liability through Matt Coronato and Tampa's weakness through Victor Hedman. Neither gap is large, but in a tight model output, small leaks widen the result.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 58%
    58%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    42%
    58%
    CGY50TBL

    TBL by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CGY 2.3–2.8 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
    CGY← edge
    edge →TBL
    47.0%54.0%
    49.0%53.0%
    2.362.67
    2.662.28
    1.762.38
    2.151.85
    0.9851.019

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 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
    CGY
    5-4-1
    +3 GD · 2d rest
    TBL
    7-3-0
    +7 GD · 1d rest
    0.985
    CGY 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 47.0%.
    • 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 Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • 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 Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CGY
    Expected in goal
    D. Wolf
    2 days rest.935 last start
    Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    TBL
    Expected in goal
    A. Vasilevskiy
    back-to-back1.000 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
    CGY
    Blake Coleman16G 12A
    0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.4% sh
    Matt Coronato10G 16A
    0.80 xG/60 · 0 HD · 6.6% 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