Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Tue, Dec 9 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at MTL

J. Johansson stands tall as the Lightning edge the Canadiens

FinalTue, Dec 9
TBLTampa Bay Lightning6MTLMontreal Canadiens1
The verdict · stolen

The Lightning stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.57–4.02 and won anyway.

TBL 6 · MTL 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:38 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 Lightning's 6-1 victory over Montreal masks a much tighter game beneath the surface. Expected goals split 4.02–3.57 in the Canadiens' favor, yet Tampa Bay ran away with it—a five-goal swing that tells a story of elite goaltending and Montreal's offensive collapse.

The Canadiens held 50% of shot attempts (27–27 on goal) and created the better quality chances. High-danger chances tied at 7–7. Yet they scored once. That's because J. Johansson saved 3.02 goals above expected—the difference between a close contest and a blowout.

Montreal's net-minders couldn't keep pace. S. Montembeault (0.769 SV%) underperformed expectations by 1.28 goals. His replacement, J. Dobes (0.786 SV%), fell 1.15 short. Where Montreal wasted quality chances, Tampa exploited the margins. On the rush, they scored 4 goals on 20 chances. Off the rush, Montreal crashed the net for 5 rebound opportunities and converted one; Tampa created 6 and converted none.

Darren Raddysh's snap shot from the point at 8:41 of the third period marked the moment Tampa's edge shifted from marginal to decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 9
TBL
6
MTL
1

J. Johansson stands tall as the Lightning edge the Canadiens

Chances 3.6 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.57
MTL
4.02
47% of the chances53%

The board read TBL 6, MTL 1. The chances read TBL 3.6, MTL 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+2.4
goals above expected
TBL3.57 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL4.02 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning scored 2.4 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:27TBLB. Point1–0
  2. P1 06:03TBLP. Holmberg2–0
  3. P1 17:12TBLN. Kucherov3–0
  4. P2 02:43TBLC. D'Astous4–0
  5. P2 19:06MTLO. KapanenPP4–1
  6. P3 01:22TBLD. Raddysh5–1
  7. P3 08:41TBLD. RaddyshPP6–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
40 shots
6
Final
82 shots
MTL
42 shots
1
TBL attackMTL attack
TBL MTL Goal
40
shots · 6 in
42
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLMTL
2 / 7
1.58 xG
High danger
1 / 7
2.14 xG
3 / 12
1.43 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.40 xG
1 / 43
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.48 xG

The Lightning buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Johansson
+3.0
TBL · 26/27
B
S. Montembeault
+0.6
MTL · 10/13
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Johansson stands tall as the Lightning edge the Canadiens

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 14–7
  1. 02:27TBLB. Point(J. Guentzel, O. Bjorkstrand)1–0
  2. 06:03TBLP. Holmberg2–0
  3. 17:12TBLN. Kucherov(M. Crozier)3–0
2ndshots 4–15
  1. 02:43TBLC. D'Astous(N. Kucherov)4–0
  2. 19:06MTLO. Kapanenpower play(N. Suzuki, I. Demidov)4–1
3rdshots 9–5
  1. 01:22TBLD. Raddysh(A. Cirelli)5–1
  2. 08:41TBLD. Raddyshpower play(B. Point)6–1

score reads TBL–MTL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.57
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.080
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
50.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.57Expected goals4.02
MTL 53% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal27
7High-danger chances7
62All attempts (Corsi)60
Adjusted for score: TBL 44% · MTL 56%
Faceoffs · MTL won77%off68%neu64%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL2 / 7 · 1.58 xG
MTL1 / 7 · 2.14 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL3 / 12 · 1.43 xG
MTL0 / 14 · 1.40 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 43 · 0.56 xG
MTL0 / 39 · 0.48 xG

TBL went 3-for-12 from medium danger on 1.43 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
6 G · 3.57 xG · +2.4
MTL
1 G · 4.02 xG · -3.0
01234567

TBL finished +2.4 against expected, MTL -3.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
SNAP5/28
BACKHAND0/4
WRIST0/3
SLAP1/2
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/22
MTL
SNAP0/32
BACKHAND0/4
WRIST0/2
SLAP0/2
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT1/1
OTHER0/18
TBL
MTL
Off the rush
4 G on 20
2.05 xG
0 G on 23
2.40 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
0.95 xG
1 G on 5
1.03 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 5-for-28, MTL 0-for-32. TBL 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
J. Johansson
TBL · 26/27 · .963
+3.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/72.1+1.1
Medium0/141.4+1.4
Low0/390.5+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

S. Montembeault
MTL · 10/13 · .769
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.6-0.4
Medium3/121.4-1.6
Low1/430.6-0.4

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

J. Dobes
MTL · 11/14 · .786
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.6-0.4
Medium3/121.4-1.6
Low1/430.6-0.4

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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
40 shots
6
Final
82 shots
MTL
42 shots
1
TBL attackMTL attack
TBL MTL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, MTL 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
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 24:26 on ice · +3
B. Point
#21 · C · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:44 on ice · +2
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:43 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 9
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:34 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 numbers are deadlocked. A Moneyuck model projects Tampa Bay 2.6 to Montreal 2.5, with the Lightning favored at 53%—close enough to flip a coin.

The Lightning's edge lives in possession. They command 54.0% of expected goals at 5-on-5 and drive play with a 53.0% Corsi advantage. The Canadiens sit at 48.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi, a passive posture by comparison.

Yet both are running hot, and that invites risk. Tampa Bay's 1.019 PDO and Montreal's 1.018 PDO signal regression—they're beating their underlying play, and the law of averages rarely makes exceptions.

The Lightning's scoring concentrates around two shooters. Brandon Hagel leads with 1.10 xG per 60 minutes, 23 goals, and 26 assists; his 2 high-danger goals and 15.8% shooting rate mark him as efficient rather than prolific. Anthony Cirelli follows at 0.95 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists, backed by 17.0% shooting and 5 high-danger goals.

Montreal counters with Cole Caufield, who posted 0.97 xG/60, 33 goals, and 16 assists. His 20.0% shooting rate towers above the league average, a clear regression signal. Oliver Kapanen chips in 0.83 xG/60 with 19 goals and 12 assists, 17.8% shooting, and 4 high-danger goals.

The defensive matchups break even. Victor Hedman anchors Tampa's blue line but grades as the team's weak link. Mike Matheson does the same for Montreal.

Territory decides tight games. Tampa's play-driving edge should manufacture incremental chances over 60 minutes. But Montreal's shooting rates—especially Caufield's—leave room for a hot night.

This is close because it is close. Take the coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 53%
53%
TBL
Model favorite
53%
47%
TBL50MTL

TBL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.5 MTL; 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 →MTL
54.0%48.0%
53.0%49.0%
2.672.41
2.282.62
2.382.24
1.851.96
1.0191.018

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.018) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
TBL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
MTL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
MTL 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 Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • 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 Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page