Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a New York Islanders sweater
← Sat, Dec 13 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at NYI

Islanders steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

Final / OTSat, Dec 13
TBLTampa Bay Lightning2NYINew York Islanders3
The verdict · stolen

The Islanders stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 5.06–2.85 and won anyway.

TBL 2 · NYI 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:13 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 beat the Lightning 3-2 in a shootout despite getting dominated in expected goals—controlling just 36% of the xG at 2.85 to Tampa's 5.06. This wasn't a close game that happened to break against the Lightning; it was a mugging.

Tampa controlled 64% of expected goals at 5v5, generating the type of shot quality and volume that typically swamps opponents. The Lightning were relentless. They just weren't effective.

I. Sorokin won this game. He stopped 3.06 goals above expected with a 0.941 SV%, including a perfect 9-for-9 on high-danger chances. J. Johansson, defeated, posted a 0.882 on 32 saves—a respectable performance buried under an avalanche of Tampa chances.

Tampa's shootout loss looked worse in context. The Lightning went 0-for-9 on high-danger chances—a misfire rate that's typically noise, but damning when combined with overwhelming volume. They couldn't finish. The Islanders were more efficient on the rush, scoring 2 of 17 chances to Tampa's 2 of 28—a distinction that shouldn't have mattered at this expected-goal deficit, yet did.

The shootout's turning point: Emil Heineman's wrist shot from the high slot, putting the Islanders over. This was a reprieve for New York, not a referendum.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 13
TBL
2
NYI
3

Islanders steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

Chances 5.1 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
5.06
NYI
2.85
64% of the chances36%

The board read TBL 2, NYI 3. The chances read TBL 5.1, NYI 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NYI
+0.1
goals above expected
NYI2.85 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL5.06 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning left 3.1 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 03:05NYIM. SchaeferPP0–1
  2. P1 10:16NYIC. Ritchie0–2
  3. P2 10:13TBLD. RaddyshPP1–2
  4. P3 03:20TBLJ. Moser2–2
  5. SO 00:00NYIM. BarzalPP2–2
  6. SO 00:00TBLB. PointPP2–2
  7. SO 00:00NYIE. HeinemanPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
53 shots
3
Final
87 shots
NYI
34 shots
4
TBL attackNYI attack
TBL NYI Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

53
shots · 3 in
34
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLNYI
0 / 9
2.29 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.29 xG
2 / 21
2.33 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.19 xG
0 / 42
0.45 xG
Low
0 / 25
0.37 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 9 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
I. Sorokin
+3.1
NYI · 32/34
B+
J. Johansson
+0.8
TBL · 15/17
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Islanders 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 8–9
  1. 03:05NYIM. Schaeferpower play(A. Duclair, M. Barzal)0–1
  2. 10:16NYIC. Ritchie(A. Duclair)0–2
2ndshots 17–1
  1. 10:13TBLD. Raddyshpower play(N. Kucherov, J. Guentzel)1–2
3rdshots 8–6
  1. 03:20TBLJ. Moser(N. Kucherov, B. Point)2–2
OTshots 1–1no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00NYIM. Barzalpower play2–2
    2. 00:00TBLB. Pointpower play2–2
    3. 00:00NYIE. Heinemanpower play2–2

    score reads TBL–NYI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.85
    NYI chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.021
    NYI puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    36.3%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.06Expected goals2.85
    TBL 64% of the chance quality
    34Shots on goal17
    9High-danger chances4
    72All attempts (Corsi)41
    Adjusted for score: TBL 67% · NYI 33%
    Faceoffs · NYI won46%off38%neu64%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TBL0 / 9 · 2.29 xG
    NYI0 / 4 · 1.29 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TBL2 / 21 · 2.33 xG
    NYI2 / 12 · 1.19 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TBL0 / 42 · 0.45 xG
    NYI0 / 25 · 0.37 xG

    TBL went 0-for-9 from high danger on 2.29 expected goals — 2.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TBL
    2 G · 5.06 xG · -3.1
    NYI
    3 G · 2.85 xG · +0.1
    0123456

    TBL finished -3.1 against expected, NYI +0.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TBL
    SNAP0/30
    WRIST1/3
    TIP IN0/9
    SLAP1/5
    BACKHAND0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/22
    NYI
    SNAP0/14
    WRIST2/9
    TIP IN0/1
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/10
    TBL
    NYI
    Off the rush
    2 G on 28
    3.70 xG
    2 G on 17
    1.61 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 7
    0.63 xG
    0 G on 5
    1.04 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 0-for-30, NYI 0-for-14. TBL scored 2 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 · 15/17 · .882
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/41.3+1.3
    Medium2/121.2-0.8
    Low0/250.4+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

    I. Sorokin
    NYI · 32/34 · .941
    +3.1
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/92.3+2.3
    Medium2/212.3+0.3
    Low0/420.5+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

    87 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TBL
    53 shots
    3
    Final
    87 shots
    NYI
    34 shots
    4
    TBL attackNYI attack
    TBL NYI Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, NYI 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 · 2 A · 4 SOG · 25:37 on ice · +1
    A. Duclair
    #11 · L · NYI
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 13:25 on ice
    D. Raddysh
    #43 · D · TBL
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 28:22 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Dec 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:45 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 sees Tampa at 53% to win—essentially a pick'em: Lightning by 2.7 expected goals to 2.5. On paper, that should favor the road team. In reality, it reflects a game where neither team can afford mistakes.

    Tampa owns the underlying play. At even strength, the Lightning are generating 54.0% of expected goals to the Islanders' 48.0%, and controlling 53.0% of shot attempts to 49.0%. That's the kind of territorial dominance that wins most nights. But they're running hot: a 1.019 PDO means luck has inflated their actual performance relative to the quality of chances they're creating and allowing. Regression is overdue. The Islanders sit at 0.993—they're slightly underperforming what they should generate, which cuts the other way.

    Both starting goalies are on back-to-backs. D. Rittich (Tampa) and J. Johansson (New York) could be rested or exhausted. Tired goaltending tends to decide close games, and this one will be decided by marginal moments. Watch whether either team opts for a backup.

    Brandon Hagel is Tampa's engine: 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes, 23 goals and 26 assists, 2 high-danger goals. His 15.8% shooting rate is elite and sustainable. Anthony Cirelli operates differently—0.95 xG/60 but 17.0% shooting and 5 high-danger goals, which means he finishes at an exceptional rate on the looks he gets.

    New York's best matchup advantage is Anders Lee. At 1.20 xG/60, he leads both rosters in shot quality. Only 9 goals to Hagel's 23, but 20 assists and just 6.4% shooting suggests variance will eventually favor him. Bo Horvat, at 0.87 xG/60 with 18 goals and 12.8% shooting, is their secondary threat and has been efficient.

    The metrics reinforce the toss-up. Tampa should win on talent and shot quality—factors that matter over seasons or series. In a single game, especially with compromised goaltending and one team running hot, neither edge is large enough to bet against the other. The model is right: flip a coin.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 53%
    53%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    TBL50NYI

    TBL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.7–2.5 NYI; 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 →NYI
    54.0%48.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.672.48
    2.282.69
    2.381.78
    1.851.94
    1.0190.993

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.993) 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
    +16 GD · 1d rest
    NYI
    6-3-1
    +2 GD · 1d rest
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    NYI 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 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.
    • D. Rittich 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 Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    TBL
    Expected in goal
    J. Johansson
    back-to-back.892 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.

    NYI
    Expected in goal
    D. Rittich
    back-to-back.939 last start
    Backup Ilya Sorokin · +25.3 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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page