Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Sat, Dec 27 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at FLA

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Panthers

FinalSat, Dec 27
TBLTampa Bay Lightning4FLAFlorida Panthers2
The verdict · stolen

The Lightning stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.30–4.71 and won anyway.

TBL 4 · FLA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:56 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 won with fewer chances—Tampa Bay beat Florida 4-2 despite trailing in expected goals 3.30 to 4.71. Florida controlled 59% of the xG and still lost. That's a heist.

A. Vasilevskiy was the architect. He made 24 saves on 26 shots for a 0.923 save percentage, stopping 2.71 goals above expected. In 18 minutes 29 seconds, N. Kucherov scored twice, including the turning point backhander at 19:04 of the third. A. Cirelli recorded 2 assists in 17:10, and J. Guentzel scored in 27:14.

Florida's offense created plenty. The Panthers generated 9 high-danger chances to Tampa's 6 and held 51% of shot attempts. They crashed the net hard, manufacturing 8 rebound chances and converting 1. S. Bobrovsky made 21 saves on 24 shots, a 0.875 save percentage.

But the metrics didn't translate. Florida underperformed their xG by 2.71 goals—quality chances squandered. Tampa's third line was lethal in transition: 3 goals on 18 rush attempts. Speed, not sustained possession, won the night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 27
TBL
4
FLA
2

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Panthers

Chances 3.3 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.30
FLA
4.71
41% of the chances59%

The board read TBL 4, FLA 2. The chances read TBL 3.3, FLA 4.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+0.7
goals above expected
TBL3.30 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA4.71 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 2.7 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 05:37FLAE. Luostarinen0–1
  2. P1 13:05TBLJ. GuentzelSH1–1
  3. P1 19:52TBLP. Holmberg2–1
  4. P2 02:31TBLN. Kucherov3–1
  5. P2 07:05FLAB. MarchandPP3–2
  6. P3 19:04TBLN. KucherovEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
34 shots
4
Final
81 shots
FLA
47 shots
2
TBL attackFLA attack
TBL FLA Goal
34
shots · 4 in
47
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLFLA
1 / 6
1.67 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.06 xG
2 / 12
1.20 xG
Medium
1 / 17
2.09 xG
1 / 26
0.43 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.56 xG

High-danger looks: TBL 1 of 6, FLA 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Vasilevskiy
+2.7
TBL · 24/26
B
S. Bobrovsky
+0.3
FLA · 21/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Panthers

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 12–5
  1. 05:37FLAE. Luostarinen(M. Samoskevich, E. Rodrigues)0–1
  2. 13:05TBLJ. Guentzelshorthanded(A. Cirelli, M. Crozier)1–1
  3. 19:52TBLP. Holmberg(Y. Gourde, D. Carlile)2–1
2ndshots 8–8
  1. 02:31TBLN. Kucherov(B. Point, G. Goncalves)3–1
  2. 07:05FLAB. Marchandpower play(S. Bennett, S. Reinhart)3–2
3rdshots 5–13
  1. 19:04TBLN. Kucherovempty net(A. Cirelli)4–2

score reads TBL–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.30
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.060
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
40.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.30Expected goals4.71
FLA 59% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal26
6High-danger chances9
44All attempts (Corsi)65
Adjusted for score: TBL 38% · FLA 62%
Faceoffs · FLA won69%off48%neu44%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL1 / 6 · 1.67 xG
FLA1 / 9 · 2.06 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL2 / 12 · 1.20 xG
FLA1 / 17 · 2.09 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 26 · 0.43 xG
FLA0 / 39 · 0.56 xG

FLA went 1-for-17 from medium danger on 2.09 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
4 G · 3.30 xG · +0.7
FLA
2 G · 4.71 xG · -2.7
0123456

TBL finished +0.7 against expected, FLA -2.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
SNAP2/14
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND2/3
WRIST0/5
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/10
FLA
SNAP1/31
TIP IN0/8
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND1/4
WRIST0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/18
TBL
FLA
Off the rush
3 G on 18
1.57 xG
1 G on 23
2.52 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.27 xG
1 G on 8
0.95 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-14, FLA 1-for-31. TBL scored 3 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
A. Vasilevskiy
TBL · 24/26 · .923
+2.7
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/92.1+1.1
Medium1/172.1+1.1
Low0/390.6+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

S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 21/24 · .875
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.7+0.7
Medium2/121.2-0.8
Low1/260.4-0.6

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
34 shots
4
Final
81 shots
FLA
47 shots
2
TBL attackFLA attack
TBL FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, FLA 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
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 18:29 on ice · +2
A. Cirelli
#71 · C · TBL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:10 on ice · +1
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 27:14 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 27
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:54 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 victory with Tampa Bay at 52% win probability—essentially a pick'em. The underlying game is genuinely close: one team with demonstrably superior play, the other riding form that matters more than the underlying numbers.

Tampa Bay owns the process. The Lightning's 54.0% 5v5 expected-goal share versus Florida's 49.0% means Tampa Bay is generating nearly five percentage points more of the game's quality chances. Corsi confirms it at 53.0% to 52.0%—they're controlling possession. But their 1.019 PDO tells a story too: they're converting at an unsustainably hot rate. The reversal will be sharp.

Florida's counter is momentum. The Panthers are 8-2-0 over their last 10 games—that's the kind of run that changes a team's playoff outlook. Their 0.989 PDO means they've actually been unlucky by the metrics; they're generating chances at a sustainable clip but underscoring them. The variance has to shift.

Tampa Bay's edge runs through its finishers. Brandon Hagel generates 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes and has 23 actual goals at a 15.8% shooting rate—well above average but not impossible for an elite scorer in a hot stretch. Anthony Cirelli pairs at 0.95 xG per 60 with five high-danger conversions and a 17.0% shooting rate. Both are running hot in tandem.

Florida's answer is its own efficiency. Sam Bennett carries 0.97 xG per 60 with 18 goals and six high-danger finishes at 13.1% shooting. Brad Marchand operates at 0.93 xG per 60 with 17 goals and a 19.5% shooting rate, including three high-danger goals. Different profiles, same result: they're converting chances at elevated rates.

Neither team generates high-danger or rebound goals anomalously, suggesting neither is structurally vulnerable on defense. Victor Hedman represents a weakness for Tampa Bay's back end.

This is a genuine coin flip dressed in model language. The Lightning's process advantage is real and repeatable. The Panthers' form is real and current. The game decides which one matters.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 52%
52%
TBL
Model favorite
52%
48%
TBL50FLA

TBL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.5 FLA; 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 →FLA
54.0%49.0%
53.0%52.0%
2.672.48
2.282.56
2.381.98
1.852.21
1.0190.989

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TBL
4-5-1
+4 GD · 4d rest
FLA
8-2-0
+9 GD · 3d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA 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%.
  • The Panthers are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
  • 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
A. Vasilevskiy
4 days rest.958 last start
Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

FLA
Expected in goal
S. Bobrovsky
3 days rest.895 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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
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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page