Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Sat, Dec 20 · the slate
Breakdown · CAR at TBL

Lightning run the Hurricanes off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Dec 20
CARCarolina Hurricanes4TBLTampa Bay Lightning6
The verdict · earned

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

CAR 4 · TBL 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:17 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 6-4 scoreline flattered Carolina. Tampa Bay controlled 71% of expected goals (4.97–2.04), a gap that typically produces a 5-2 result, not a 2-goal game. Carolina overperformed by 1.96 goals; A. Vasilevskiy underperformed by 1.96 despite facing only 22 shots.

The Lightning's quality advantage was decisive. They generated 0.081 xG per shot versus Carolina's 0.041—a 2:1 ratio—and converted from dangerous areas. Ten high-danger chances to two told the story. Tampa's 57% shot-attempt share (29–22) was dwarfed by their xG dominance. They created 8 rebound opportunities and converted 2, while crashing the net effectively.

Carolina's power play (2 PPG on 12 PP shots) was dominant, and they scored 4 from 21 rush chances while finding 2 from low-danger spots. It wasn't enough against Tampa's efficiency: 2 goals on 27 rush chances, plus the bulk of the open-ice play.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 20
CAR
4
TBL
6

Lightning run the Hurricanes off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.0 – 5.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CAR
2.04
TBL
4.97
29% of the chances71%

The board read CAR 4, TBL 6. The chances read CAR 2.0, TBL 5.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+1.0
goals above expected
TBL4.97 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR2.04 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:42CARE. Robinson1–0
  2. P1 04:00CARJ. BlakePP2–0
  3. P1 12:27CARB. NadeauPP3–0
  4. P2 00:30TBLG. Goncalves3–1
  5. P2 01:20TBLB. Point3–2
  6. P2 16:36TBLJ. Finley3–3
  7. P3 02:47CARA. Svechnikov4–3
+3 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CAR
35 shots
4
Final
80 shots
TBL
45 shots
6
CAR attackTBL attack
CAR TBL Goal
35
shots · 4 in
45
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CARTBL
0 / 2
0.38 xG
High danger
3 / 10
2.43 xG
2 / 12
1.24 xG
Medium
3 / 17
2.13 xG
2 / 36
0.42 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.41 xG

The Lightning buried 3 of 10 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
P. Kochetkov
−0.0
CAR · 23/28
F
A. Vasilevskiy
−2.0
TBL · 18/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Hurricanes off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 10–6
  1. 02:42CARE. Robinson(J. Staal)1–0
  2. 04:00CARJ. Blakepower play(N. Ehlers, S. Gostisbehere)2–0
  3. 12:27CARB. Nadeaupower play(L. Stankoven)3–0
2ndshots 6–14
  1. 00:30TBLG. Goncalves(D. James, M. Crozier)3–1
  2. 01:20TBLB. Point(C. D'Astous, N. Kucherov)3–2
  3. 16:36TBLJ. Finley(D. James, Y. Gourde)3–3
3rdshots 6–9
  1. 02:47CARA. Svechnikov(M. Jankowski, J. Kotkaniemi)4–3
  2. 03:13TBLR. McDonagh(P. Holmberg, C. D'Astous)4–4
  3. 06:38TBLJ. Guentzel(J. Moser, N. Paul)4–5
  4. 19:33TBLJ. Guentzelempty net(R. McDonagh)4–6

score reads CAR–TBL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.97
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.018
TBL puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
55.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.04Expected goals4.97
TBL 71% of the chance quality
22Shots on goal29
2High-danger chances10
50All attempts (Corsi)61
Adjusted for score: CAR 43% · TBL 57%
Faceoffs · TBL won68%off50%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CAR0 / 2 · 0.38 xG
TBL3 / 10 · 2.43 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CAR2 / 12 · 1.24 xG
TBL3 / 17 · 2.13 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CAR2 / 36 · 0.42 xG
TBL0 / 34 · 0.41 xG

CAR went 2-for-36 from low danger on 0.42 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CAR
4 G · 2.04 xG · +2.0
TBL
6 G · 4.97 xG · +1.0
01234567

CAR finished +2.0 against expected, TBL +1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CAR
WRIST1/15
SLAP1/10
TIP IN1/3
SNAP0/2
BACKHAND1/2
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/15
TBL
WRIST3/29
SLAP0/3
TIP IN1/6
SNAP1/5
BACKHAND1/1
POKE0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/16
CAR
TBL
Off the rush
4 G on 21
1.29 xG
2 G on 27
2.78 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.17 xG
2 G on 8
1.34 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CAR went 1-for-15, TBL 3-for-29. CAR 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
P. Kochetkov
CAR · 23/28 · .821
-0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/102.4-0.6
Medium3/172.1-0.9
Low0/340.4+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

A. Vasilevskiy
TBL · 18/22 · .818
-2.0
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium2/121.2-0.8
Low2/360.4-1.6

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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CAR
35 shots
4
Final
80 shots
TBL
45 shots
6
CAR attackTBL attack
CAR TBL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CAR 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
R. McDonagh
#27 · D · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:34 on ice · +3
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 19:19 on ice · +1
C. D'Astous
#51 · D · TBL
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:42 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 20
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:15 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 pregame model calls this perfectly even: Carolina 2.6 goals, Tampa Bay 2.6 goals, each team at 50% to win. Neither team holds an edge—which makes sense when you dig into the underlying data.

Carolina controls play. The Hurricanes run 60.0% Corsi and own 56.0% expected goals share, meaning they're generating more dangerous chances and occupying more of the ice. Tampa Bay sits at 53.0% Corsi and 54.0% xG%—respectable, but they're being pressured.

Yet Tampa's conversion rates are working overtime. The Lightning's PDO of 1.019 signals they're finishing above the long-run average and receiving excellent goaltending. Carolina sits at 0.984, running cold. That's the tension in this matchup: a possession-dominant team can still be 50/50 to lose when their opponent is converting at a premium rate.

Expect this to normalize. Tampa's shooting will regress downward. Carolina's should move up.

The attacking gap isn't dramatic. Jackson Blake drives at 14 goals and 19 assists with 1.06 expected goals per 60 minutes; Seth Jarvis has produced 17 goals on 11.9% shooting, suggesting efficient finishing. Brandon Hagel leads Tampa at 23 goals and 26 assists (1.10 xG/60), while Anthony Cirelli's 5 high-danger goals paired with 17.0% shooting implies finish that may not hold.

Defensively, both clubs struggle with the same problem. Victor Hedman is a consistent weak link in Tampa's third; Charles Alexis Legault occupies that role for Carolina. Both sit at 0% on high-danger and rebound goals, which means neither team is leaking chance quality in obvious ways, but neither is shutting down dangerous looks.

This is a true coin flip: possession favors one team, luck slightly favors the other, and the two forces offset. The winner will be whoever's regression accelerates first.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 50%
50%
CAR
Model favorite
50%
50%
CAR50TBL

CAR by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CAR 2.6–2.6 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
CAR← edge
edge →TBL
56.0%54.0%
60.0%53.0%
2.982.67
2.312.28
2.262.38
1.951.85
0.9841.019

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.984 vs 1.019) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
CAR
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
TBL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.984
CAR 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 Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
CAR
Jackson Blake14G 19A
1.06 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.9% sh
Seth Jarvis17G 12A
0.98 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.9% 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