Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater

Breakdown · CBJ at FLA

Panthers run the Blue Jackets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTSat, Dec 6

CBJColumbus Blue Jackets6 FLAFlorida Panthers7

The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 6 · FLA 7

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:28 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 Panthers' command of this game didn't show on the scoreboard. They controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (4.37–2.85) and 56% of shot attempts (40–31), yet squeezed out only a 7-6 overtime win—a margin that understates their dominance.

Both teams massively overperformed their xG, turning this into a high-variance affair. The Panthers outscored theirs by 2.63 goals; the Blue Jackets by 3.15. Columbus's overperformance was particularly notable—they generated fewer chances but finished with ruthless efficiency, especially off the rush (5 goals on 25 chances).

Florida's lethal rush game was the difference. They scored 6 goals from 39 rush opportunities and converted 2 low-danger chances where opposing goalies would normally hold. Sam Bennett's game-winning wrist shot at 04:56 of overtime epitomized their clinical finishing.

E. Merzlikins (33/40 saves, 0.825 SV%) allowed 2.63 more goals than expected—the toll of facing Florida's high-volume chances. S. Bobrovsky (25/31 saves, 0.806 SV%) allowed 3.15 more, undone by two low-danger soft goals and Columbus's rush efficiency.

Florida's territorial superiority proved decisive in the end, though the Blue Jackets' rush success nearly forced a different outcome.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Dec 6

CBJ

FLA

Panthers run the Blue Jackets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.9 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CBJ

2.85

FLA

4.37

40% of the chances61%

The board read CBJ 6, FLA 7. The chances read CBJ 2.9, FLA 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

FLA

+2.6

goals above expected

FLA4.37 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

CBJ2.85 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

The Panthers scored 2.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 07:40CBJD. SeversonPP1–0
P1 09:47FLAE. Rodrigues1–1
P2 05:26CBJD. Voronkov2–1
P2 05:57CBJM. Wood3–1
P2 10:24CBJK. Marchenko4–1
P2 11:15FLAC. Verhaeghe4–2
P2 13:11FLAC. VerhaeghePP4–3

+6 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

CBJ

39 shots

Final

89 shots

FLA

50 shots

CBJ FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 7 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CBJFLA

0 / 2

0.36 xG

High danger

2 / 6

1.48 xG

4 / 15

1.85 xG

Medium

3 / 15

1.96 xG

2 / 29

0.63 xG

Low

2 / 50

0.94 xG

The Panthers buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

E. Merzlikins

−2.6

CBJ · 33/40

S. Bobrovsky

−3.1

FLA · 25/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Panthers run the Blue Jackets 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 8–9

07:40CBJD. Seversonpower play(I. Provorov, C. Sillinger)1–0
09:47FLAE. Rodrigues(M. Samoskevich)1–1

2ndshots 12–15

05:26CBJD. Voronkov(I. Provorov, Z. Werenski)2–1
05:57CBJM. Wood(C. Coyle, I. Lundeström)3–1
10:24CBJK. Marchenko(A. Fantilli, D. Voronkov)4–1
11:15FLAC. Verhaeghe(S. Jones, B. Marchand)4–2
13:11FLAC. Verhaeghepower play(B. Marchand, S. Bennett)4–3
16:12FLAS. Jonespower play(S. Reinhart, S. Bennett)4–4
18:26CBJC. Sillinger(D. Mateychuk)5–4

3rdshots 6–12

02:27CBJI. Lundeström(M. Wood, B. Smith)6–4
04:21FLAB. Marchand(S. Bennett, C. Verhaeghe)6–5
14:18FLAA. Lundell(E. Luostarinen)6–6

OTshots 5–4

04:56FLAS. Bennett(B. Marchand, G. Forsling)6–7

score reads CBJ–FLA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.37

FLA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

0.968

FLA puck luck

Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them

60.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.85Expected goals4.37

FLA 61% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal40

2High-danger chances6

46All attempts (Corsi)71

Adjusted for score: CBJ 37% · FLA 63%

Faceoffs · FLA won65%off56%neu52%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CBJ0 / 2 · 0.36 xG

FLA2 / 6 · 1.48 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CBJ4 / 15 · 1.85 xG

FLA3 / 15 · 1.96 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CBJ2 / 29 · 0.63 xG

FLA2 / 50 · 0.94 xG

CBJ went 4-for-15 from medium danger on 1.85 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CBJ

6 G · 2.85 xG · +3.1

FLA

7 G · 4.37 xG · +2.6

012345678

CBJ finished +3.1 against expected, FLA +2.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CBJ

SNAP1/15

WRIST1/6

SLAP0/8

BACKHAND2/4

TIP IN2/5

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/7

FLA

SNAP1/27

WRIST5/16

SLAP0/1

BACKHAND0/4

TIP IN1/2

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/21

CBJ

FLA

Off the rush

5 G on 25

2.34 xG

6 G on 39

3.45 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.02 xG

0 G on 3

0.52 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CBJ went 1-for-15, FLA 1-for-27. FLA scored 6 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

E. Merzlikins

CBJ · 33/40 · .825

-2.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/61.5-0.5

Medium3/152.0-1.0

Low2/500.9-1.1

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

S. Bobrovsky

FLA · 25/31 · .806

-3.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.4+0.4

Medium4/151.9-2.1

Low2/290.6-1.4

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

CBJ

39 shots

Final

89 shots

FLA

50 shots

CBJ FLA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ left, FLA 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

S. Bennett

#9 · C · FLA

1 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 23:46 on ice · +2

B. Marchand

#63 · L · FLA

1 G · 3 A · 10 SOG · 23:16 on ice · +2

C. Verhaeghe

#23 · C · FLA

2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:36 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 6

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:06 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

This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The model projects a 2.6–2.6 game with the Blue Jackets at 50% win probability.

Columbus owns the underlying play: 52.0% 5v5 xG to Florida's 49.0%. At 0.98 xG/60, Boone Jenner remains the centerpiece (11G, 21A), while Mathieu Olivier has emerged as an unlikely secondary threat at 0.89 xG/60 with 12 goals on a 13.3% shooting rate. Yet the Blue Jackets are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10—a warning that shot generation hasn't translated to wins. Columbus's 9.6% shooting rate suggests some cold-streak luck, though Jenner's 2 high-danger goals points to volume-driven efficiency rather than variance.

Florida's Corsi% edges Columbus at 52.0% to 51.0%, though their expected-goals output lags. Their PDO sits at 0.989—a half-point below Columbus's 1.003—suggesting they're running out of regression room. Sam Bennett (18G, 19A, 0.97 xG/60) remains a legitimate threat with 6 high-danger goals; Brad Marchand (17G, 9A, 0.93 xG/60) operates at an elevated 19.5% shooting rate that feels unsustainable.

A wildcard: both S. Bobrovsky and E. Merzlikins face back-to-back games, creating potential for backup deployment or tired starters. Either team might sacrifice goaltending consistency for forward freshness.

Both clubs sit at 0% high-danger and rebound-goal rates—an odd symmetry suggesting video scouting matters more than aggregate percentages. Olivier's 13.3% shooting and Marchand's 19.5% will likely regress, but sample size determines the timing.

Columbus's shot-generation edge meets Florida's more stable play-driving profile. Neither has pulled ahead. That's your coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 50%

50%

CBJ

Model favorite

50%

CBJ50FLA

CBJ by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.6–2.6 FLA; 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

CBJ← edge

edge →FLA

52.0%49.0%

51.0%52.0%

2.632.48

2.432.56

2.121.98

1.982.21

1.0030.989

CBJ holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.989) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CBJ

4-2-4

-6 GD · 1d rest

FLA

4-5-1

-1 GD · 1d rest

1.003

CBJ PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.

Things to watch

The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
S. Bobrovsky is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
E. Merzlikins is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Blue Jackets are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CBJ

Expected in goal

E. Merzlikins

back-to-back.848 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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.

FLA

Expected in goal

S. Bobrovsky

back-to-back.931 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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

CBJ

Boone Jenner11G 21A

0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh

Mathieu Olivier12G 9A

0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh

FLA

Sam Bennett18G 19A

0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh

Brad Marchand17G 9A

0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page