Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
Breakdown · PIT at TBL

Penguins steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Penguins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.27–5.47 and won anyway.

PIT 4 · TBL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:52 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 Penguins won a game they had no business winning. Tampa Bay dominated the expected-goal battle 5.47–3.27, controlling 63% of xG at 5v5 — yet Pittsburgh escaped with a 4-3 victory.

This was a triumph of goaltending and variance. T. Jarry made 37 saves on 40 shots at 0.925 SV%, stopping 2.47 goals above expected. J. Johansson made 27 saves on 31 shots at 0.871 SV%, allowing 0.73 goals above expected. That swing decided the game.

The Lightning controlled everything else. They held 56% of shot attempts (40–31 on goal) and led in high-danger chances 9–5. Tampa Bay generated 7 rebound opportunities—evidence of net-front aggression—yet converted none. They were also lethal on the rush, scoring 3 goals on 38 rush chances, but underperformed their xG by 2.47 goals.

Pittsburgh's edge came from efficiency on the rush: 4 goals on 26 rush chances. The Penguins were also dominant on the power play, scoring twice on 8 shots with 0.75 expected goals from that unit.

Evgeni Malkin provided the turning point, wrist shot from the slot in the third period at 17:17. He finished with 2 goals and 1 assist in 14:58.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 4
PIT
4
TBL
3

Penguins steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

Chances 3.3 – 5.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
3.27
TBL
5.47
37% of the chances63%

The board read PIT 4, TBL 3. The chances read PIT 3.3, TBL 5.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+0.7
goals above expected
PIT3.27 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL5.47 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning left 2.5 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. P1 06:12PITV. KoivunenPP1–0
  2. P2 07:53PITE. Malkin2–0
  3. P2 09:49PITB. KindelPP3–0
  4. P2 18:46TBLN. Kucherov3–1
  5. P3 01:17TBLB. HagelPP3–2
  6. P3 11:44TBLB. Hagel3–3
  7. P3 17:17PITE. Malkin4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
47 shots
4
Final
105 shots
TBL
58 shots
3
PIT attackTBL attack
PIT TBL Goal
47
shots · 4 in
58
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITTBL
1 / 5
1.23 xG
High danger
2 / 9
2.07 xG
3 / 14
1.38 xG
Medium
1 / 29
2.88 xG
0 / 32
0.65 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.52 xG

High-danger looks: PIT 1 of 5, TBL 2 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
T. Jarry
+2.5
PIT · 37/40
D
J. Johansson
−0.7
TBL · 27/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

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 8–15
  1. 06:12PITV. Koivunenpower play(K. Letang, T. Novak)1–0
2ndshots 11–9
  1. 07:53PITE. Malkin2–0
  2. 09:49PITB. Kindelpower play(E. Karlsson, E. Malkin)3–0
  3. 18:46TBLN. Kucherov(D. Raddysh, J. Guentzel)3–1
3rdshots 12–16
  1. 01:17TBLB. Hagelpower play(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)3–2
  2. 11:44TBLB. Hagel(N. Paul, G. Goncalves)3–3
  3. 17:17PITE. Malkin(T. Novak, A. Mantha)4–3

score reads PIT–TBL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.27
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.037
PIT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.27Expected goals5.47
TBL 63% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal40
5High-danger chances9
51All attempts (Corsi)73
Adjusted for score: PIT 37% · TBL 63%
Faceoffs · TBL won59%off33%neu42%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT1 / 5 · 1.23 xG
TBL2 / 9 · 2.07 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT3 / 14 · 1.38 xG
TBL1 / 29 · 2.88 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT0 / 32 · 0.65 xG
TBL0 / 35 · 0.52 xG

TBL went 1-for-29 from medium danger on 2.88 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
4 G · 3.27 xG · +0.7
TBL
3 G · 5.47 xG · -2.5
0123456

PIT finished +0.7 against expected, TBL -2.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
SNAP1/21
WRIST2/14
SLAP0/7
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/1
POKE0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/4
TBL
SNAP1/25
WRIST0/7
SLAP1/11
TIP IN1/9
BACKHAND0/3
POKE0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/15
PIT
TBL
Off the rush
4 G on 26
2.31 xG
3 G on 38
3.48 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.17 xG
0 G on 7
1.05 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PIT went 1-for-21, TBL 1-for-25. PIT 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
T. Jarry
PIT · 37/40 · .925
+2.5
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/92.1+0.1
Medium1/292.9+1.9
Low0/350.5+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. Johansson
TBL · 27/31 · .871
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.2+0.2
Medium3/141.4-1.6
Low0/320.7+0.7

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

105 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
47 shots
4
Final
105 shots
TBL
58 shots
3
PIT attackTBL attack
PIT TBL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT 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
E. Malkin
#71 · C · PIT
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 14:58 on ice · +2
D. Raddysh
#43 · D · TBL
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 27:49 on ice · +1
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 10 SOG · 25:28 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 4
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:50 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 calls this a pick'em: 2.5-2.7 goal differential with the Lightning at 55% to win. Neither team has a clear edge.

Tampa Bay owns the underlying play. At 54.0% 5v5 expected goals and 53.0% Corsi, they control possession in a way Pittsburgh—which sits at 51.0% xG and 50.0% Corsi—simply doesn't. Expect territorial tilt in the Lightning's favor.

That said, Tampa's dominance isn't as wide as it appears. A four-point gap in xG% and three-point lead in Corsi% is meaningful but not overwhelming. Pittsburgh has the ability to stay close despite the possession disadvantage. What tips this toward Tampa is recent form: the Lightning are 8-2-0 in their last 10 games, a momentum advantage Pittsburgh doesn't match.

The real complication is Tampa's underlying metrics are buoyed by unsustainable luck. Their PDO sits at 1.019 compared to Pittsburgh's 1.012. That extra heat isn't skill; it's variance working in their favor. Expect some regression.

Vasilevskiy faces a back-to-back start. Monitor whether Tampa rolls with the backup or runs its starter tired—a fatigued Vasilevskiy is still elite, but it's worth tracking.

Players to Watch:

Rickard Rakell leads Pittsburgh's attack at 1.01 xG per 60 minutes with 13 goals, 13 assists, and three high-danger goals on a 12.1% shooting rate. Filip Hallander (1.28 xG/60) is likely out with injury evaluation. Watch Rakell to carry load.

For Tampa, Brandon Hagel generates 1.10 xG per 60 with 23 goals, 26 assists, and a 15.8% shooting rate backed by two high-danger goals. Anthony Cirelli (0.95 xG/60) converts at 17.0% with five high-danger tallies. Both will be featured in a game Tampa expects to control.

Both teams leave scoring chances on the table—each converts high-danger chances at 0%, which is unsustainable in either direction. Defensively, Pittsburgh's weak link is Caleb Jones; Tampa's is Victor Hedman. These vulnerabilities won't swing the game alone.

The Lightning should win this on merit. They'll dominate possession and generate better scoring chances. But the gap is narrow enough that any variance—a hot night from Rakell, a soft goal from Vasilevskiy—flips the outcome. That's why the model sees it as a flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 55%
55%
TBL
Model favorite
45%
55%
PIT50TBL

TBL by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.5–2.7 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
PIT← edge
edge →TBL
51.0%54.0%
50.0%53.0%
2.662.67
2.552.28
2.452.38
2.121.85
1.0121.019

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 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
PIT
4-3-3
-3 GD · 2d rest
TBL
8-2-0
+17 GD · 1d rest
1.012
PIT 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 51.0%.
  • 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 51.0%.
  • 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 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
PIT
Expected in goal
T. Jarry
2 days rest.966 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL
Expected in goal
A. Vasilevskiy
back-to-back.917 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
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% 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