Motion-blurred skater in a New York Islanders sweater
Breakdown · TBL at NYI

I. Sorokin stands tall as the Islanders edge the Lightning

The verdict · stolen

The Islanders stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.54–3.96 and won anyway.

TBL 1 · NYI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:37 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

I. Sorokin stole a game the Lightning should have owned. New York won 2-1, but expected goals said otherwise: Tampa Bay generated 4.54 to the Islanders' 3.96, a 53-47 split in the visitors' favor. Sorokin's 0.968 save percentage and +3.54 goals saved above expected explain the gap—he turned a likely loss into a narrow win.

The Islanders controlled possession where it mattered. Shot attempts ran 24-31 against them, but they packed more danger into their chances: 0.090 xG per shot versus Tampa's 0.061. That quality advantage should have closed the margin. It didn't—at least not fully. New York underperformed its xG by 1.96 goals, wasting the sharp looks Dominic James and the attack manufactured.

The Lightning's collapse was sharper. Tampa Bay underperformed its xG by 3.54 goals, a chasm that included a 0-for-5 night on high-danger chances. For a team that created nine rebound opportunities, that won't sting as much as the raw shot-creation metrics suggest. Still, this was a game Tampa Bay could have won if variance had broken even.

A. Vasilevskiy held up his end, posting a 0.917 save percentage and +1.96 goals saved. He kept the Lightning in it through the third. But I. Sorokin's 3.54 goals saved above expected proved the difference. That's a goaltender who didn't just stop the puck; he rewrote a story the underlying numbers had already written.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 2
TBL
1
NYI
2

I. Sorokin stands tall as the Islanders edge the Lightning

Chances 4.5 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
4.54
NYI
3.96
53% of the chances47%

The board read TBL 1, NYI 2. The chances read TBL 4.5, NYI 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NYI
−2.0
goals above expected
NYI3.96 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL4.54 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning left 3.5 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. P2 00:55NYIB. Horvat0–1
  2. P3 05:30NYIA. Duclair0–2
  3. P3 16:26TBLD. James1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
52 shots
1
Final
89 shots
NYI
37 shots
2
TBL attackNYI attack
TBL NYI Goal
52
shots · 1 in
37
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLNYI
0 / 5
1.14 xG
High danger
1 / 6
2.07 xG
0 / 24
2.76 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.31 xG
1 / 45
0.64 xG
Low
0 / 27
0.58 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
I. Sorokin
+3.5
NYI · 30/31
A
A. Vasilevskiy
+2.0
TBL · 22/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

I. Sorokin stands tall as the Islanders edge the Lightning

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 9–9no goals
    2ndshots 13–8
    1. 00:55NYIB. Horvat(M. Shabanov)0–1
    3rdshots 9–7
    1. 05:30NYIA. Duclair(C. Ritchie, T. DeAngelo)0–2
    2. 16:26TBLD. James(E. Lilleberg, N. Paul)1–2

    score reads TBL–NYI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.96
    NYI chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.0
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.032
    NYI puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    37.3%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.54Expected goals3.96
    TBL 53% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal24
    5High-danger chances6
    74All attempts (Corsi)44
    Adjusted for score: TBL 66% · NYI 34%
    Faceoffs · NYI won33%off69%neu46%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TBL0 / 5 · 1.14 xG
    NYI1 / 6 · 2.07 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TBL0 / 24 · 2.76 xG
    NYI1 / 11 · 1.31 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TBL1 / 45 · 0.64 xG
    NYI0 / 27 · 0.58 xG

    TBL went 0-for-24 from medium danger on 2.76 expected goals — 2.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TBL
    1 G · 4.54 xG · -3.5
    NYI
    2 G · 3.96 xG · -2.0
    012345

    TBL finished -3.5 against expected, NYI -2.0.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TBL
    WRIST1/13
    SNAP0/14
    SLAP0/9
    BACKHAND0/7
    TIP IN0/5
    DEFLECTED0/3
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/22
    NYI
    WRIST1/18
    SNAP1/11
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/7
    TBL
    NYI
    Off the rush
    1 G on 33
    3.17 xG
    0 G on 19
    1.65 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 9
    1.15 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.43 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 1-for-13, NYI 1-for-18.

    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 · 22/24 · .917
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/62.1+1.1
    Medium1/111.3+0.3
    Low0/270.6+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. Sorokin
    NYI · 30/31 · .968
    +3.5
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.1+1.1
    Medium0/242.8+2.8
    Low1/450.6-0.4

    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

    89 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TBL
    52 shots
    1
    Final
    89 shots
    NYI
    37 shots
    2
    TBL attackNYI attack
    TBL NYI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, NYI 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. Horvat
    #14 · C · NYI
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 22:22 on ice · +1
    E. Lilleberg
    #78 · D · TBL
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:54 on ice · +1
    T. DeAngelo
    #77 · D · NYI
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 16:40 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Dec 2
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:36 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 2.7-2.5 Lightning win with Tampa Bay at 53% probability—essentially a coin flip. This is what parity looks like: both teams have paths to victory with negligible separation.

    Tampa Bay is the hotter team, running an 8-2-0 streak, though that form masks a structural advantage built on efficiency rather than volume. The Lightning own the underlying play at 54.0% expected goals to the Islanders' 48.0%, and their 53.0% Corsi versus New York's 49.0% confirms they're controlling territory. But this efficiency comes with a debt: Tampa Bay's 1.019 PDO is artificially inflated, while the Islanders sit at 0.993. Regression favors New York.

    Brandon Hagel anchors the Lightning attack, generating 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes across 23 goals and 26 assists, including 2 high-danger goals, while shooting at 15.8%. Anthony Cirelli provides secondary scoring at 0.95 xG/60 with 15 goals, 18 assists, 5 high-danger goals, and 17.0% shooting. The Islanders counter with Anders Lee, generating 1.20 expected goals per 60 minutes with 9 goals, 20 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and 6.4% shooting. Bo Horvat rounds out their scoring at 0.87 xG/60 with 18 goals, 10 assists, 3 high-danger goals, and 12.8% shooting.

    The stranger constraint: both teams sit at 0% high-danger and rebound goal rates this season. Neither has developed the net-front havoc that overwhelms playoff goaltending. Victor Hedman represents Tampa Bay's defensive crack; Alexander Romanov shoulders the same burden for New York.

    The models call this a toss. The data agrees. Flip it in the air.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 53%
    53%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    TBL50NYI

    TBL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.7–2.5 NYI; 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 →NYI
    54.0%48.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.672.48
    2.282.69
    2.381.78
    1.851.94
    1.0190.993

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.993) 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
    +14 GD · 3d rest
    NYI
    5-4-1
    -1 GD · 2d rest
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    NYI 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.
    • 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
    J. Johansson
    3 days rest.923 last start
    Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    NYI
    Expected in goal
    I. Sorokin
    2 days rest.882 last start
    Backup Ilya Sorokin · +25.3 GSAx this season

    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
    NYI
    Anders Lee9G 20A
    1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh
    Bo Horvat18G 10A
    0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next