Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Wed, Dec 31 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at ANA

Lightning edge the Ducks in overtime

Final / OTWed, Dec 31
TBLTampa Bay Lightning4ANAAnaheim Ducks3
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 4 · ANA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:32 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

Expected goals nearly split even (48–52), yet high-danger chances favored the Lightning 6–4. Both teams excelled on the rush—Anaheim with 3 goals on 26 chances, Tampa with 4 on 30—showing the competitive level of play. D. Raddysh's wrist shot from the slot at 2:47 of overtime delivered the deciding goal.

Anaheim's shot volume nearly matched Tampa's: the Ducks held 49% of shot attempts (28–29 on goal). A. Vasilevskiy's 0.893 save percentage outpaced L. Dostal's 0.862, a gap too narrow to hand the Lightning a comfortable margin. The Ducks' precision in dangerous areas kept them within reach.

Three Stars

  • B. Hagel (TBL) — 3A in 19:14
  • D. Raddysh (TBL) — 1G, 1A in 26:08
  • N. Kucherov (TBL) — 1G, 1A in 18:29
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Dec 31
TBL
4
ANA
3

Lightning edge the Ducks in overtime

Chances 3.6 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Lightning took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.58
ANA
3.24
52% of the chances48%

The board read TBL 4, ANA 3. The chances read TBL 3.6, ANA 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+0.4
goals above expected
TBL3.58 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.24 expected · 3 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 13:30TBLJ. Moser1–0
  2. P2 15:17ANAJ. Harkins1–1
  3. P2 19:11TBLB. Point2–1
  4. P3 03:57ANAB. Sennecke2–2
  5. P3 08:00TBLN. KucherovPP3–2
  6. P3 13:02ANAM. McTavishPP3–3
  7. OT 02:47TBLD. Raddysh4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
41 shots
4
Final
86 shots
ANA
45 shots
3
TBL attackANA attack
TBL ANA Goal
41
shots · 4 in
45
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLANA
2 / 6
1.57 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.92 xG
1 / 14
1.35 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.63 xG
1 / 37
0.66 xG
Low
1 / 41
0.70 xG

The Lightning buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
A. Vasilevskiy
+0.2
TBL · 25/28
D
L. Dostal
−0.4
ANA · 25/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning edge the Ducks in overtime

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 7–6
  1. 13:30TBLJ. Moser(D. Raddysh, B. Hagel)1–0
2ndshots 9–7
  1. 15:17ANAJ. Harkins(R. Johnston)1–1
  2. 19:11TBLB. Point(M. Crozier, N. Kucherov)2–1
3rdshots 10–14
  1. 03:57ANAB. Sennecke2–2
  2. 08:00TBLN. Kucherovpower play(B. Hagel, C. D'Astous)3–2
  3. 13:02ANAM. McTavishpower play(P. Mintyukov)3–3
OTshots 3–1
  1. 02:47TBLD. Raddysh(B. Hagel, A. Vasilevskiy)4–3

score reads TBL–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.58
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.021
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
48.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.58Expected goals3.24
TBL 52% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal28
6High-danger chances4
57All attempts (Corsi)61
Adjusted for score: TBL 46% · ANA 54%
Faceoffs · ANA won55%off61%neu71%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL2 / 6 · 1.57 xG
ANA1 / 4 · 0.92 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL1 / 14 · 1.35 xG
ANA1 / 16 · 1.63 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 37 · 0.66 xG
ANA1 / 41 · 0.70 xG

ANA went 1-for-16 from medium danger on 1.63 expected goals — 0.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
4 G · 3.58 xG · +0.4
ANA
3 G · 3.24 xG · -0.2
012345

TBL finished +0.4 against expected, ANA -0.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
SNAP1/14
WRIST1/8
SLAP1/8
TIP IN1/8
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/16
ANA
SNAP2/18
WRIST1/11
SLAP0/9
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/16
TBL
ANA
Off the rush
4 G on 30
3.10 xG
3 G on 26
2.24 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.27 xG
0 G on 1
0.03 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 1-for-14, ANA 2-for-18. TBL 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
A. Vasilevskiy
TBL · 25/28 · .893
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium1/161.6+0.6
Low1/410.7-0.3

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

L. Dostal
ANA · 25/29 · .862
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/61.6-0.4
Medium1/141.4+0.3
Low1/370.7-0.3

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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
41 shots
4
Final
86 shots
ANA
45 shots
3
TBL attackANA attack
TBL ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, ANA 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
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
0 G · 3 A · 6 SOG · 19:14 on ice · +2
D. Raddysh
#43 · D · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 26:08 on ice · +1
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:29 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Dec 31
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:31 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 2.6–2.7 goal game with the Ducks at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as it gets.

Recent form diverges sharply. The Lightning are 6-3-1 in their last 10—the hotter team by points pace. The Ducks carry -15 goal differential over the same stretch, yet underlying metrics nearly erase the gap. The Lightning hold marginal edges in both expected goals (54.0% to 52.0%) and shot attempt share (53.0% to 52.0%), which is not enough to explain the form gap entirely. That gap—the Lightning's recent surge versus the Ducks' cold stretch—looks like volatility breaking in Tampa's favor rather than a fundamental talent disparity.

The regression math tilts slightly Anaheim. The Ducks' 0.981 PDO reads as a team running cold, due for positive variance; the Lightning's 1.019 PDO is running hot and likely to regress. That's a small edge in the variance alone.

The Ducks also own a rest advantage—one day of rest versus the Lightning's three. L. Dostal faces a back-to-back, which creates assignment risk; watch whether the Ducks lean on a backup or ask their starter to push through.

Scoring will depend on Brandon Hagel and Anthony Cirelli for Tampa Bay. Hagel posts 1.10 xG/60 with 23 goals and a 15.8% shooting rate, though his high-danger work (2 goals) lags his volume. Cirelli clocks 0.95 xG/60 but owns a 17.0% shooting rate—more efficient relative to his chances. For Anaheim, Beckett Sennecke operates at 1.03 xG/60 with 20 goals and a team-leading 8 high-danger goals. Cutter Gauthier brings 25 goals from 0.99 xG/60 but owns just 2 high-danger tallies, so his scoring leans on secondary chances.

Victor Hedman is the Lightning's defensive weak link; Mason McTavish fills that role for Anaheim. In a game this tight, those gaps will be tested.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 51%
51%
ANA
Model favorite
49%
51%
TBL50ANA

ANA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.7 ANA; 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 →ANA
54.0%52.0%
53.0%52.0%
2.672.80
2.282.59
2.382.09
1.852.32
1.0190.981

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.981) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TBL
6-3-1
+10 GD · 3d rest
ANA
3-6-1
-15 GD · 1d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • L. Dostal is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Lightning are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
  • The Ducks are underwater at -15 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Lightning have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TBL
Expected in goal
J. Johansson
3 days rest.886 last start
Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
back-to-back.556 last start
Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 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
ANA
Beckett Sennecke20G 19A
1.03 xG/60 · 8 HD · 13.5% sh
Cutter Gauthier25G 16A
0.99 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page