Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
Breakdown · NYI at FLA

Panthers pull away from the Islanders

The verdict · earned

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

NYI 1 · FLA 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:20 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 Islanders lost 4-1, but underperformed their expected goals by 1.58. The shortfall explains why the scoreline looks so decisive while the underlying game was competitive.

Florida controlled the metrics: 56% of 5v5 expected goals (3.33–2.58), 59% of shot attempts (30–21 on goal), a 4–3 edge in high-danger chances. The Islanders had the structure to compete but lacked the conversion.

D. Tarasov (FLA) was the difference with 20 saves on 21 shots, stopping 1.6 goals above expected—a 0.952 save percentage that eliminated second chances. D. Rittich (NYI) stopped 26 of 29 but allowed low-percentage opportunities at 0.897 SV%, the margin that cost the game.

S. Reinhart's goal at 17:06 of the third from the high slot swung the game. Florida then shredded the Islanders' defense with a rush attack: 3 goals on 26 rush chances, an efficiency spike New York couldn't contain. The Islanders generated 6 rebound opportunities but converted none.

Florida scored twice from low-danger spots—the kind of finishes that require sharp execution. S. Jones sealed it in the third. The 4–1 scoreline reads like a blowout, but expected goals (3.33–2.58) indicates a closer contest decided by conversion rates, not dominance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 7
NYI
1
FLA
4

Panthers pull away from the Islanders

Chances 2.6 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NYI
2.58
FLA
3.33
44% of the chances56%

The board read NYI 1, FLA 4. The chances read NYI 2.6, FLA 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
+0.7
goals above expected
FLA3.33 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NYI2.58 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Islanders left 1.6 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 12:14FLAU. Balinskis0–1
  2. P2 07:05FLAC. Verhaeghe0–2
  3. P2 09:03NYIM. Barzal1–2
  4. P3 13:57FLAS. Jones1–3
  5. P3 17:06FLAS. ReinhartEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NYI
36 shots
1
Final
80 shots
FLA
44 shots
4
NYI attackFLA attack
NYI FLA Goal
36
shots · 1 in
44
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NYIFLA
0 / 3
0.57 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.35 xG
1 / 14
1.61 xG
Medium
1 / 10
1.16 xG
0 / 38
0.40 xG
Low
2 / 48
0.83 xG

The Islanders went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Tarasov
+1.6
FLA · 20/21
B
D. Rittich
+0.3
NYI · 26/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers pull away from the Islanders

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 10–11
  1. 12:14FLAU. Balinskis(M. Samoskevich, A. Greer)0–1
2ndshots 8–11
  1. 07:05FLAC. Verhaeghe(J. Petry)0–2
  2. 09:03NYIM. Barzal(M. Schaefer, R. Pulock)1–2
3rdshots 3–8
  1. 13:57FLAS. Jones(A. Lundell, S. Reinhart)1–3
  2. 17:06FLAS. Reinhartempty net(G. Forsling)1–4

score reads NYI–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.33
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.046
FLA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
53.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.58Expected goals3.33
FLA 56% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal30
3High-danger chances4
55All attempts (Corsi)62
Adjusted for score: NYI 50% · FLA 50%
Faceoffs · FLA won57%off53%neu44%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NYI0 / 3 · 0.57 xG
FLA1 / 4 · 1.35 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NYI1 / 14 · 1.61 xG
FLA1 / 10 · 1.16 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NYI0 / 38 · 0.40 xG
FLA2 / 48 · 0.83 xG

FLA went 2-for-48 from low danger on 0.83 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NYI
1 G · 2.58 xG · -1.6
FLA
4 G · 3.33 xG · +0.7
012345

NYI finished -1.6 against expected, FLA +0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NYI
WRIST0/15
SNAP0/7
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/3
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/19
FLA
WRIST4/25
SNAP0/10
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/2
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/18
NYI
FLA
Off the rush
1 G on 19
1.64 xG
3 G on 26
2.72 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
0.72 xG
0 G on 1
0.09 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NYI went 0-for-15, FLA 4-for-25. FLA 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
D. Rittich
NYI · 26/29 · .897
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.4+0.3
Medium1/101.2+0.2
Low2/480.8-1.2

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

D. Tarasov
FLA · 20/21 · .952
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.6+0.6
Medium1/141.6+0.6
Low0/380.4+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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NYI
36 shots
1
Final
80 shots
FLA
44 shots
4
NYI attackFLA attack
NYI FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NYI 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. Reinhart
#13 · C · FLA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:01 on ice · +2
M. Schaefer
#48 · D · NYI
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:38 on ice · -1
S. Jones
#3 · D · FLA
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 21:23 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Dec 7
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:18 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 this matchup at 2.5–2.7 expected goals per team, with Florida favored at 53% to win—as close to a pick'em as the math allows.

The underlying metrics explain why. Florida leads in shot volume (52.0% Corsi) and raw offensive chance generation (49.0% xG%), while New York sits slightly below average on both (49.0% Corsi, 48.0% xG%). Territorial advantage belongs to the Panthers. But New York's PDO of 0.993 sits marginally higher than Florida's 0.989—a reminder that small shooting luck differentials matter in tight games.

The goaltending variable cuts both ways. S. Bobrovsky is on a back-to-back, a detail worth monitoring for either a backup appearance or diminished performance from the starter.

Anders Lee drives the Islanders offense at 1.20 xG per 60 minutes and has posted 9 goals and 20 assists. He's shooting at just 6.4%, a red flag—only 2 of his goals came from high-danger chances—suggesting regression risk if his shooting normalizes upward. Bo Horvat runs a similar offensive role (0.87 xG/60, 18 goals, 10 assists), though his 12.8% shooting rate and 3 high-danger goals suggest he's converting at a sustainable clip.

For Florida, Sam Bennett brings 0.97 xG/60 with 18 goals and 19 assists, backed by 6 high-danger goals and a 13.1% shooting rate that hints at genuine offensive finish. Brad Marchand adds 0.93 xG/60 with 17 goals and 9 assists, though his 19.5% shooting rate is a notable outlier—that's the kind of number that doesn't hold. Marchand's 3 high-danger goals suggest his name-front scoring is more luck-dependent than Bennett's.

Florida's structural advantage in Corsi should translate to more shot attempts, but New York's slightly elevated PDO and Lee's shooting regression risk create offsetting uncertainties. Bennett's high-danger goal total (6) is material evidence of Florida's finish, while the Islanders' secondary scoring hasn't demonstrated the same conversion reliability.

This is genuinely a toss-up.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 53%
53%
FLA
Model favorite
47%
53%
NYI50FLA

FLA by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NYI 2.5–2.7 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
NYI← edge
edge →FLA
48.0%49.0%
49.0%52.0%
2.482.48
2.692.56
1.781.98
1.942.21
0.9930.989

FLA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.989) says NYI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NYI
5-4-1
+1 GD · 2d rest
FLA
4-5-1
-3 GD · 1d rest
0.993
NYI 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 Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • S. Bobrovsky is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NYI
Expected in goal
I. Sorokin
2 days rest.921 last start
Backup Ilya Sorokin · +25.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

FLA
Expected in goal
S. Bobrovsky
back-to-back.806 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
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
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