Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater

Breakdown · FLA at TBL

Panthers pull away from the Lightning

FinalMon, Dec 15

FLAFlorida Panthers5 TBLTampa Bay Lightning2

The verdict · coin flip

The Panthers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

FLA 5 · TBL 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:31 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 held an expected-goals edge (2.51 to 2.38) yet lost 5–2, a disconnect that exposed the gap between volume and quality. Tampa Bay's shot-attempt advantage (54 percent, 28–24) masked inferior shot quality: Florida averaged 0.070 expected goals per attempt versus Tampa Bay's 0.040.

Goaltending diverged sharply. J. Johansson surrendered 2.6 more goals than expected, his 0.792 SV% well below the model. S. Bobrovsky posted a 0.929 SV% (+0.51 vs expected) on 26 saves.

The Panthers were lethal off the rush—5 goals on 18 chances—while Tampa Bay managed only 2 on 26. Carter Verhaeghe's backhander from the doorstep (third period, 06:37) was the game's turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 15

FLA

TBL

Panthers pull away from the Lightning

Chances 2.4 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Panthers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

2.38

TBL

2.51

49% of the chances51%

The board read FLA 5, TBL 2. The chances read FLA 2.4, TBL 2.5.

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

Luck check

FLA

+2.6

goals above expected

FLA2.38 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

TBL2.51 expected · 2 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 02:16FLAS. ReinhartSH1–0
P1 03:48FLAA. Lundell2–0
P2 11:48FLAB. Marchand3–0
P2 18:08FLAS. ReinhartPP4–0
P2 19:27TBLM. Crozier4–1
P3 02:11TBLJ. Moser4–2
P3 06:37FLAC. Verhaeghe5–2

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

Where the shots came from

FLA

29 shots

Final

75 shots

TBL

46 shots

FLA TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLATBL

1 / 4

0.91 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.57 xG

3 / 10

1.06 xG

Medium

1 / 13

1.19 xG

1 / 20

0.41 xG

Low

1 / 48

0.75 xG

High-danger looks: FLA 1 of 4, TBL 0 of 2.

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

In the net

S. Bobrovsky

+0.5

FLA · 26/28

J. Johansson

−2.6

TBL · 19/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Panthers pull away from the Lightning

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 8–13

02:16FLAS. Reinhartshorthanded(A. Ekblad)1–0
03:48FLAA. Lundell(U. Balinskis, S. Jones)2–0

2ndshots 13–5

11:48FLAB. Marchand(C. Verhaeghe, A. Ekblad)3–0
18:08FLAS. Reinhartpower play(M. Samoskevich)4–0
19:27TBLM. Crozier(O. Bjorkstrand, B. Point)4–1

3rdshots 3–10

02:11TBLJ. Moser(B. Point, D. Raddysh)4–2
06:37FLAC. Verhaeghe(U. Balinskis)5–2

score reads FLA–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.38

FLA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.115

FLA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

35.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.38Expected goals2.51

TBL 51% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal28

4High-danger chances2

34All attempts (Corsi)63

Adjusted for score: FLA 29% · TBL 71%

Faceoffs · TBL won73%off64%neu32%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA1 / 4 · 0.91 xG

TBL0 / 2 · 0.57 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA3 / 10 · 1.06 xG

TBL1 / 13 · 1.19 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA1 / 20 · 0.41 xG

TBL1 / 48 · 0.75 xG

FLA went 3-for-10 from medium danger on 1.06 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

5 G · 2.38 xG · +2.6

TBL

2 G · 2.51 xG · -0.5

0123456

FLA finished +2.6 against expected, TBL -0.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

WRIST2/13

SLAP0/4

SNAP1/6

TIP IN1/3

POKE0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

BACKHAND1/1

OTHER0/5

TBL

WRIST0/20

SLAP1/14

SNAP1/7

TIP IN0/5

POKE0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

BACKHAND0/0

OTHER0/17

FLA

TBL

Off the rush

5 G on 18

1.42 xG

2 G on 26

2.02 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5

0.86 xG

0 G on 2

0.01 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 2-for-13, TBL 0-for-20. FLA scored 5 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

S. Bobrovsky

FLA · 26/28 · .929

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.6+0.6

Medium1/131.2+0.2

Low1/480.8-0.3

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. Johansson

TBL · 19/24 · .792

-2.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium3/101.1-1.9

Low1/200.4-0.6

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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

29 shots

Final

75 shots

TBL

46 shots

FLA TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

A. Ekblad

#5 · D · FLA

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 23:06 on ice

S. Reinhart

#13 · C · FLA

2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 22:19 on ice · +2

B. Point

#21 · C · TBL

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:41 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Dec 15

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:27 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

Tampa Bay carries a 56% win probability despite a close expected-goal projection. The gap opens in shot quality: the Lightning generate 54.0% of 5v5 expected goals to Florida's 49.0%, a meaningful control advantage.

Here's the risk. Tampa's 1.019 PDO—the ratio of actual goals to expected goals—signals goaltending luck or favorable bounces running hot. That tends to regress. Florida's 0.989 implies some negative variance has already hit, but the Lightning's fortune could swing the other way.

Brandon Hagel drives Tampa's attack. He generates 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes and has scored 23 goals with 26 assists. Anthony Cirelli (0.95 xG/60, 15G 18A) supplies secondary scoring. Florida counters with Sam Bennett (0.97 xG/60, 18G 19A) and Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 17G 9A), both reliable but operating within that xG deficit.

Shooting efficiency reveals the variance problem. Marchand converts at 19.5% with three high-danger goals; Hagel at 15.8% with two. When a player generating lower-quality looks outpaces one with better underlying metrics, that gap rarely persists. Bennett's 13.1% sits closer to expectation for his 0.97 xG/60 rate.

Bobrovsky, Florida's goaltender, faces a back-to-back. A backup start or a tired starter in the third period tilts another marginal edge toward Tampa.

The model's 56% leans on Lightning control. They should dictate shot volume and quality. But Marchand's hot hand and regression risk in Tampa's PDO create real uncertainty. This is Tampa's to lose if underlying play holds, but variance has a voice here too.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 56%

56%

TBL

Model favorite

44%

56%

FLA50TBL

TBL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score FLA 2.4–2.8 TBL; 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

FLA← edge

edge →TBL

49.0%54.0%

52.0%53.0%

2.482.67

2.562.28

1.982.38

2.211.85

0.9891.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 1.019) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

FLA

5-4-1

+2 GD · 1d rest

TBL

5-4-1

+12 GD · 2d rest

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.019

TBL 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 49.0%.

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 49.0%.
S. Bobrovsky 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

FLA

Expected in goal

S. Bobrovsky

back-to-back1.000 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.

TBL

Expected in goal

J. Johansson

2 days rest.882 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

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

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page