Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
Breakdown · TBL at NJD

Lightning pull away from the Devils

The verdict · stolen

The Lightning stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.94–4.15 and won anyway.

TBL 8 · NJD 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:51 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 beat the Devils 8-4 in a game that exposed the difference between dominating possession metrics and converting them into goals. New Jersey controlled 58% of expected goals to 42%, but Tampa's finishing was clinical while the Devils' goaltending collapsed.

The variance was brutal. The xG line was 4.15 to 2.94—a significant advantage for New Jersey that simply didn't translate to wins. J. Markstrom gave up four goals on seven shots (0.571 SV%), underperforming his expected result by 2.41 goals. J. Allen wasn't much better on 28 attempts at 0.821 SV%, another 2.65 goals worse than expected. J. Johansson, meanwhile, stopped 33 of 37 for the Lightning at 0.892.

Where Tampa capitalized: the Lightning scored three goals from low-danger areas where opposing goaltenders should routinely make saves. New Jersey created seven rebound chances and converted zero. The home team managed clinical efficiency on the rush (4 goals on 24 chances), but the Lightning were even better (6 on 24).

Oliver Bjorkstrand scored the turning point—a wrist shot from the doorstep in the third period—and finished with two goals and an assist. N. Kucherov orchestrated with four assists in 16:12, while J. Guentzel added a goal and two assists.

The Devils were clinical where they needed to be: 3 of 7 in high-danger chances (43%). The Lightning matched them there (2 of 5, 40%) and then found three goals in low-danger spots. That's the game distilled: New Jersey owned the expected-goals battle; Tampa won everywhere it mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 11
TBL
8
NJD
4

Lightning pull away from the Devils

Chances 2.9 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Devils deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
2.94
NJD
4.15
42% of the chances59%

The board read TBL 8, NJD 4. The chances read TBL 2.9, NJD 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+5.1
goals above expected
TBL2.94 expected · 8 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD4.15 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning scored 5.1 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 02:57TBLN. Paul1–0
  2. P1 03:48TBLD. Raddysh2–0
  3. P1 07:00NJDL. Hughes2–1
  4. P1 07:56TBLP. Holmberg3–1
  5. P1 15:00TBLJ. GuentzelPP4–1
  6. P2 06:19TBLO. Bjorkstrand5–1
  7. P2 13:12NJDJ. BrattPP5–2
+5 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
41 shots
8
Final
90 shots
NJD
49 shots
4
TBL attackNJD attack
TBL NJD Goal
41
shots · 8 in
49
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLNJD
2 / 5
1.13 xG
High danger
3 / 7
1.68 xG
3 / 14
1.32 xG
Medium
1 / 17
1.90 xG
3 / 36
0.49 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.57 xG

The Lightning buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
J. Johansson
+0.1
TBL · 33/37
C
J. Markstrom
−0.1
NJD · 4/7
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning pull away from the Devils

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 15–15
  1. 02:57TBLN. Paul(S. Sabourin)1–0
  2. 03:48TBLD. Raddysh(N. Kucherov, B. Hagel)2–0
  3. 07:00NJDL. Hughes(B. Dillon, P. Cotter)2–1
  4. 07:56TBLP. Holmberg(J. Moser, Y. Gourde)3–1
  5. 15:00TBLJ. Guentzelpower play(O. Bjorkstrand, D. Raddysh)4–1
2ndshots 13–6
  1. 06:19TBLO. Bjorkstrand(J. Guentzel, B. Point)5–1
  2. 13:12NJDJ. Brattpower play(S. Nemec, S. Noesen)5–2
  3. 16:35TBLB. Hagelpower play(N. Kucherov, D. Carlile)6–2
3rdshots 7–16
  1. 03:13NJDA. Crookshankpower play(C. White, S. Nemec)6–3
  2. 07:55TBLB. Point(N. Kucherov, J. Moser)7–3
  3. 15:28NJDP. Cotter(C. Glass, L. Hughes)7–4
  4. 15:57TBLO. Bjorkstrandpower play(J. Guentzel, N. Kucherov)8–4

score reads TBL–NJD

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.94
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+5.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.083
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.94Expected goals4.15
NJD 59% of the chance quality
35Shots on goal37
5High-danger chances7
55All attempts (Corsi)64
Adjusted for score: TBL 39% · NJD 61%
Faceoffs · NJD won67%off31%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL2 / 5 · 1.13 xG
NJD3 / 7 · 1.68 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL3 / 14 · 1.32 xG
NJD1 / 17 · 1.90 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL3 / 36 · 0.49 xG
NJD0 / 40 · 0.57 xG

TBL went 3-for-36 from low danger on 0.49 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
8 G · 2.94 xG · +5.1
NJD
4 G · 4.15 xG · -0.1
0123456789

TBL finished +5.1 against expected, NJD -0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
WRIST4/24
SNAP2/12
SLAP1/3
BACKHAND1/2
TIP IN0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/14
NJD
WRIST3/24
SNAP1/16
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/1
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/15
TBL
NJD
Off the rush
6 G on 24
2.03 xG
4 G on 24
2.27 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.61 xG
0 G on 7
0.95 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 4-for-24, NJD 3-for-24. TBL 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
J. Johansson
TBL · 33/37 · .892
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/71.7-1.3
Medium1/171.9+0.9
Low0/400.6+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

J. Markstrom
NJD · 4/7 · .571
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.1-0.9
Medium3/141.3-1.7
Low3/360.5-2.5

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. Allen
NJD · 23/28 · .821
-2.1
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.1-0.9
Medium3/141.3-1.7
Low3/360.5-2.5

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
41 shots
8
Final
90 shots
NJD
49 shots
4
TBL attackNJD attack
TBL NJD Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, NJD 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
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
0 G · 4 A · 4 SOG · 16:12 on ice · +2
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 15:22 on ice · +1
O. Bjorkstrand
#22 · R · TBL
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 13:47 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 11
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:49 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 2.6–2.5 Lightning win with Tampa at 52% win probability—which is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Tampa owns the underlying play. The Lightning generate 54.0% of expected goals at 5v5, compared to New Jersey's 50.0%, and control possession at 53.0% Corsi% versus 51.0%. But the Devils arrive with a statistical tailwind. Their 0.971 PDO indicates they've been running cold and are due for positive regression. Tampa, meanwhile, sits at 1.019 PDO—a sign they've beaten their underlying quality and expect regression. That gap between hot and cold is why this isn't simply a Lightning fade.

New Jersey has posted a -8 goal differential over the last 10 games, an early warning that they're not yet translating opportunities into results.

J. Markstrom (Tampa) and J. Johansson (New Jersey) both play the second of a back-to-back; fatigue could decide a tight game.

Brandon Hagel (1.10 xG/60, 23 goals, 26 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 15.8% shooting) displays elite creation and finishing. Anthony Cirelli (0.95 xG/60, 15 goals, 18 assists, 5 high-danger goals, 17.0% shooting) operates at similar volume with stronger reliability.

For New Jersey, Timo Meier (1.08 xG/60, 13 goals, 15 assists, 3 high-danger goals) generates chances at a rate close to Hagel's, but his 6.7% shooting suggests positive variance ahead. Jack Hughes (0.88 xG/60, 18 goals, 17 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 11.5% shooting) relies more on volume; he hasn't yet converted opportunistically.

Victor Hedman is Tampa's defensive liability. Johnathan Kovacevic fills that role for New Jersey. Whichever team's forwards exploit these gaps will separate in a game decided at the margins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 52%
52%
TBL
Model favorite
52%
48%
TBL50NJD

TBL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.5 NJD; 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 →NJD
54.0%50.0%
53.0%51.0%
2.672.45
2.282.50
2.381.66
1.852.23
1.0190.971

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.971) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TBL
6-4-0
+14 GD · 1d rest
NJD
4-6-0
-8 GD · 1d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.971
NJD 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 50.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive 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 50.0%.
  • J. Markstrom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • J. Johansson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Devils are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TBL
Expected in goal
J. Johansson
back-to-back.963 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.

NJD
Expected in goal
J. Markstrom
back-to-back.921 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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
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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next