Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Fri, Nov 28 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at DET

Lightning pull away from the Red Wings

FinalFri, Nov 28
TBLTampa Bay Lightning6DETDetroit Red Wings3
The verdict · stolen

The Lightning stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.29–4.71 and won anyway.

TBL 6 · DET 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:06 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 underlying numbers sided with Detroit. Expected goals favored the Red Wings 4.71–4.29—yet Tampa Bay won 6–3. Variance and goaltending explain the divergence.

A. Vasilevskiy stopped 1.71 goals above expected. J. Gibson surrendered 0.71 more than he should have. The Red Wings underperformed their xG by 1.71 goals; the Lightning overperformed by the same amount.

Detroit owned the details: 58% of shot attempts, nine high-danger chances to eight. But their best looks didn't land. Seven rebound opportunities yielded just one goal. Tampa Bay managed only three rebounds, also cashing one. The real gap was rush efficiency. The Lightning converted four goals on 26 rush chances; Detroit managed two on 28.

Turning point: Brandon Hagel's wrist shot from the top of the circles (P3, 17:13).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 28
TBL
6
DET
3

Lightning pull away from the Red Wings

Chances 4.3 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
4.29
DET
4.71
48% of the chances52%

The board read TBL 6, DET 3. The chances read TBL 4.3, DET 4.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+1.7
goals above expected
TBL4.29 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
DET4.71 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning scored 1.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 11:29DETJ. Compher0–1
  2. P1 17:07TBLD. RaddyshPP1–1
  3. P2 00:34TBLG. Goncalves2–1
  4. P2 03:01TBLY. Gourde3–1
  5. P2 03:13DETM. Rasmussen3–2
  6. P2 16:09TBLY. Gourde4–2
  7. P2 18:26DETD. Larkin4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
40 shots
6
Final
88 shots
DET
48 shots
3
TBL attackDET attack
TBL DET Goal
40
shots · 6 in
48
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLDET
3 / 8
2.35 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.68 xG
2 / 11
1.34 xG
Medium
1 / 17
1.50 xG
1 / 37
0.59 xG
Low
1 / 26
0.53 xG

The Lightning buried 3 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.7
TBL · 34/37
D
J. Gibson
−0.7
DET · 21/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning pull away from the Red Wings

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 11–11
  1. 11:29DETJ. Compher(M. Rasmussen)0–1
  2. 17:07TBLD. Raddyshpower play(N. Kucherov, J. Guentzel)1–1
2ndshots 9–13
  1. 00:34TBLG. Goncalves(O. Bjorkstrand, N. Paul)2–1
  2. 03:01TBLY. Gourde3–1
  3. 03:13DETM. Rasmussen(J. Compher)3–2
  4. 16:09TBLY. Gourde4–2
  5. 18:26DETD. Larkin(L. Raymond, S. Edvinsson)4–3
3rdshots 7–13
  1. 12:37TBLJ. Guentzel(D. Raddysh, N. Kucherov)5–3
  2. 17:13TBLB. Hagelempty net(D. Raddysh)6–3

score reads TBL–DET

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.29
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.050
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
51.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.29Expected goals4.71
DET 52% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal37
8High-danger chances9
56All attempts (Corsi)52
Adjusted for score: TBL 49% · DET 51%
Faceoffs · DET won44%off43%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL3 / 8 · 2.35 xG
DET1 / 9 · 2.68 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL2 / 11 · 1.34 xG
DET1 / 17 · 1.50 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 37 · 0.59 xG
DET1 / 26 · 0.53 xG

DET went 1-for-9 from high danger on 2.68 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
6 G · 4.29 xG · +1.7
DET
3 G · 4.71 xG · -1.7
01234567

TBL finished +1.7 against expected, DET -1.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
SNAP2/17
WRIST1/11
SLAP2/6
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN1/3
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/16
DET
SNAP2/16
WRIST0/19
SLAP0/7
BACKHAND1/4
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/4
TBL
DET
Off the rush
4 G on 26
3.35 xG
2 G on 28
2.51 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3
0.60 xG
1 G on 7
1.63 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-17, DET 2-for-16. 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
A. Vasilevskiy
TBL · 34/37 · .919
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/92.7+1.7
Medium1/171.5+0.5
Low1/260.5-0.5

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. Gibson
DET · 21/26 · .808
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/82.4-0.7
Medium2/111.3-0.7
Low1/370.6-0.4

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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
40 shots
6
Final
88 shots
DET
48 shots
3
TBL attackDET attack
TBL DET Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, DET 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 · 3 SOG · 24:04 on ice · +2
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 19:40 on ice · +2
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:05 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Nov 28
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:05 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 2.6 to 2.5 with the Lightning at 52% win probability—a true pick'em.

Tampa Bay owns the game in 5v5 play. The Lightning have gone 8-2-0 while maintaining 54.0% expected goals and 53.0% Corsis, territorial control that yields chances every shift. Detroit's -10 goal differential over the last 10 indicates close games are still ending in losses. Tampa's PDO of 1.019 signals regression risk; Detroit's 0.985 suggests upward reversion.

Brandon Hagel (23G, 15.8% shooting, 1.10 xG/60) and Anthony Cirelli (15G, 17.0% shooting, 0.95 xG/60) drive the Lightning's offense. Hagel has 2 high-danger goals; Cirelli has 5. Detroit's Alex DeBrincat (17G, 0.88 xG/60) and Marco Kasper (7G, 0.81 xG/60) lag in volume. DeBrincat has 2 high-danger goals; Kasper has 1. Victor Hedman is a defensive liability for Tampa; Axel Sandin-Pellikka carries identical risk for Detroit.

Both C. Talbot and A. Vasilevskiy play on back-to-backs—backup starts are possible, tired starters likely. The model's 4-point favor to Tampa aligns with the 5v5 dominance. But recent Detroit context and goaltender fatigue create friction. The Lightning should win this more often than not. A coin flip it remains.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 52%
52%
TBL
Model favorite
52%
48%
TBL50DET

TBL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.5 DET; 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 →DET
54.0%49.0%
53.0%49.0%
2.672.38
2.282.50
2.381.73
1.852.07
1.0190.985

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.985) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TBL
8-2-0
+12 GD · 1d rest
DET
4-5-1
-10 GD · 1d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.985
DET 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 49.0%.
  • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • C. Talbot 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 Lightning are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
  • The Red Wings are underwater at -10 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
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.

DET
Expected in goal
C. Talbot
back-to-back.821 last start
Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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
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
DET
Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
Marco Kasper7G 8A
0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page