Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
Breakdown · TBL at NYR

Lightning run the Rangers off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 4 · NYR 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:13 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

Tampa Bay's 80% xG advantage (6.90–1.77) reveals a game far more one-sided than the 4-1 scoreline suggests. I. Shesterkin's goaltending—he saved 3.9 goals above expected—explains why: he kept New York competitive despite being dominated across every metric.

New York controlled just 27% of shot attempts (13–35), a deficit that shaped the game's entire character. The high-danger count was grimmer: 1 to 13. Tampa Bay's shot quality more than doubled New York's (0.099 xG per shot vs. 0.034), a disparity that reflected their superiority generating chances through the rush and in the set play.

The Lightning demonstrated this clearly off the rush, converting 3 of 29 attempts into goals and creating 10 rebound opportunities by crashing the net. Yet despite controlling everything, they underperformed their 6.90 xG by 2.90 goals—a sign that execution fell short of the opportunities created.

Shesterkin's 0.912 SV% on 31 saves masked this dominance. He stopped 92% of 13 high-danger chances, an extraordinary rate that turned what should have been a rout into a one-goal game. J. Johansson's 12/13 saves (0.923 SV%) was solid. But Shesterkin's +3.90 vs. expected defined the gap—his goaltending carried New York through an afternoon of absolute Tampa Bay dominance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 29
TBL
4
NYR
1

Lightning run the Rangers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 6.9 – 1.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
6.90
NYR
1.77
80% of the chances20%

The board read TBL 4, NYR 1. The chances read TBL 6.9, NYR 1.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−2.9
goals above expected
TBL6.90 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NYR1.77 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 10:53TBLB. Hagel1–0
  2. P2 08:57TBLB. Hagel2–0
  3. P2 17:31NYRJ. Miller2–1
  4. P3 02:02TBLN. Paul3–1
  5. P3 19:42TBLJ. GuentzelEN4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
55 shots
4
Final
85 shots
NYR
30 shots
1
TBL attackNYR attack
TBL NYR Goal
55
shots · 4 in
30
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLNYR
1 / 13
4.09 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.24 xG
2 / 19
2.10 xG
Medium
1 / 8
0.90 xG
1 / 38
0.71 xG
Low
0 / 43
0.64 xG

High-danger looks: TBL 1 of 13, NYR 0 of 1.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
I. Shesterkin
+3.9
NYR · 31/34
B+
J. Johansson
+0.8
TBL · 12/13
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Rangers off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 11–2
  1. 10:53TBLB. Hagel(D. Raddysh, N. Kucherov)1–0
2ndshots 16–7
  1. 08:57TBLB. Hagel(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)2–0
  2. 17:31NYRJ. Miller(A. Fox, M. Zibanejad)2–1
3rdshots 8–4
  1. 02:02TBLN. Paul(N. Kucherov, C. D'Astous)3–1
  2. 19:42TBLJ. Guentzelempty net(Y. Gourde, D. Raddysh)4–1

score reads TBL–NYR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.90
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−2.9
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.038
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
57.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

6.90Expected goals1.77
TBL 80% of the chance quality
35Shots on goal13
13High-danger chances1
70All attempts (Corsi)52
Adjusted for score: TBL 52% · NYR 48%
Faceoffs · NYR won67%off60%neu67%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL1 / 13 · 4.09 xG
NYR0 / 1 · 0.24 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL2 / 19 · 2.10 xG
NYR1 / 8 · 0.90 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 38 · 0.71 xG
NYR0 / 43 · 0.64 xG

TBL went 1-for-13 from high danger on 4.09 expected goals — 3.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
4 G · 6.90 xG · -2.9
NYR
1 G · 1.77 xG · -0.8
012345678

TBL finished -2.9 against expected, NYR -0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
WRIST3/26
SNAP0/10
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN1/4
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/15
NYR
WRIST0/15
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/3
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/22
TBL
NYR
Off the rush
3 G on 29
4.16 xG
1 G on 18
1.47 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 10
1.43 xG
0 G on 1
0.04 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 3-for-26, NYR 0-for-15. 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 · 12/13 · .923
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium1/80.9-0.1
Low0/430.6+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

I. Shesterkin
NYR · 31/34 · .912
+3.9
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/134.1+3.1
Medium2/192.1+0.1
Low1/380.7-0.3

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
55 shots
4
Final
85 shots
NYR
30 shots
1
TBL attackNYR attack
TBL NYR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, NYR 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 · 3 A · 5 SOG · 25:22 on ice · +3
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 21:40 on ice · +3
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 18:59 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 29
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:11 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 Tampa Bay at 53% win probability, with expected goals favoring Lightning 2.5 to 2.4. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find in the NHL.

Tampa Bay has earned its edge through recent momentum and dominant underlying play. The Lightning are 8-2-0 in their last 10, and that hot streak reflects what the numbers show: they control 5v5 shot quality at 54.0% expected goals to New York's 48.0%, and they're winning territorial battles decisively, posting a 53.0% Corsi advantage. The Rangers haven't generated enough volume to overcome their quality deficit — the gap is narrow, but it's consistent.

Tampa's 1.019 PDO suggests some luck is baked into their recent run. They're bound to cool slightly, but their underlying control should persist. New York's 1.009 PDO is closer to sustainable levels, meaning their current output is more reflective of true performance — not an advantage.

Both teams will likely roll backup goalies or fatigued starters tonight. I. Shesterkin and A. Vasilevskiy are both on back-to-backs, so expect either a goaltending substitution or one elite starter running on fumes. This uncertainty tilts toward Tampa, who can win games on volume and conversion if caught against a tired opponent.

For the Lightning, Brandon Hagel is the offensive engine: 23 goals, 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes, 15.8% shooting. He's overdue for negative regression but remains lethal. Anthony Cirelli adds depth at 0.95 xG/60 with 15 goals and a 17.0% shooting rate; he's found chemistry this season. The Rangers need to execute defensively here, particularly against Hagel's ability to generate clean looks.

New York's offensive weapons are lower-volume but still dangerous. Adam Sykora is shooting at 20.0% on 0.91 xG/60 with limited ice time (3G 1A), making him a ticking clock for regression. Gabe Perreault offers steadier production at 0.79 xG/60 with 8 goals and 11 assists, though his 13.1% shooting suggests he's also elevated.

The tactical battle hinges on Tampa's territorial dominance. If the Lightning win the volume game without needing perfection from Hagel, they cover their projected edge. Victor Hedman is Tampa's defensive vulnerability, while Vincent Iorio is New York's. Both teams generate 0% of their offense from high-danger chances and rebounds, so expect tight scoring with chances coming at even strength through volume and conversion rate swings — not broken-down defensive plays.

This is a match between Tampa's control and New York's precision. The Lightning's recent form, underlying metrics, and volume advantage make them slight favorites, but the goaltending uncertainty and the Rangers' resilience in tight spots keep this genuinely close.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 53%
53%
TBL
Model favorite
53%
47%
TBL50NYR

TBL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.5–2.4 NYR; 19% 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 →NYR
54.0%48.0%
53.0%49.0%
2.672.26
2.282.40
2.381.88
1.851.90
1.0191.009

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.009) 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
NYR
6-4-0
+9 GD · 1d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.009
NYR 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 48.0%.
  • 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 48.0%.
  • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • I. Shesterkin 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 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.919 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.

NYR
Expected in goal
I. Shesterkin
back-to-back.905 last start
Backup Igor Shesterkin · +21.3 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
NYR
Adam Sykora3G 1A
0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
Gabe Perreault8G 11A
0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next