Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
Breakdown · TBL at LAK

Lightning hold off the Kings

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 5 · LAK 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:54 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 beat the Kings 5-3, separated by efficiency in dangerous areas. Tampa Bay converted 67% of high-danger chances (4 of 6), while Los Angeles managed 40% (2 of 5). Identical chance volume became a two-goal margin through execution alone.

Los Angeles controlled 46% of shot attempts (20-24), yet expected goals told a different story: Tampa controlled 60%-40% (4.28-2.86). The execution was surgical. Nikita Kucherov's backhander from the doorstep at 19:15 of the third typified the gap between generating chances and finishing them.

Goaltending was stable: J. Johansson at 0.850 save percentage, D. Kuemper at 0.826. Los Angeles' power play landed twice on seven attempts (0.97 xG), enough to remain competitive but never enough to shift momentum. C. Perry's three assists kept the Kings tethered; D. Raddysh's two-point night anchored Tampa's attack.

On the rush, Tampa pulled away: four goals on 25 chances versus Los Angeles' two on 22. In a tight game, that differential separated the teams.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 1
TBL
5
LAK
3

Lightning hold off the Kings

Chances 4.3 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
4.28
LAK
2.86
60% of the chances40%

The board read TBL 5, LAK 3. The chances read TBL 4.3, LAK 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+0.7
goals above expected
TBL4.28 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK2.86 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 03:34TBLB. PointPP1–0
  2. P1 04:43LAKJ. Malott1–1
  3. P1 06:14LAKA. KuzmenkoPP1–2
  4. P2 18:07TBLB. Point2–2
  5. P3 01:37LAKK. FialaPP2–3
  6. P3 16:41TBLA. Cirelli3–3
  7. P3 18:19TBLG. Goncalves4–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
38 shots
5
Final
74 shots
LAK
36 shots
3
TBL attackLAK attack
TBL LAK Goal
38
shots · 5 in
36
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLLAK
4 / 6
2.11 xG
High danger
2 / 5
1.15 xG
1 / 13
1.57 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.14 xG
0 / 40
0.59 xG
Low
1 / 32
0.58 xG

The Lightning buried 4 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
D. Kuemper
+0.3
LAK · 19/23
C
J. Johansson
−0.1
TBL · 17/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning hold off the Kings

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 8–11
  1. 03:34TBLB. Pointpower play(J. Guentzel, N. Kucherov)1–0
  2. 04:43LAKJ. Malott(C. Perry)1–1
  3. 06:14LAKA. Kuzmenkopower play(C. Perry, K. Fiala)1–2
2ndshots 7–1
  1. 18:07TBLB. Point(D. Raddysh, J. Moser)2–2
3rdshots 9–8
  1. 01:37LAKK. Fialapower play(C. Perry, A. Kuzmenko)2–3
  2. 16:41TBLA. Cirelli(B. Hagel, N. Kucherov)3–3
  3. 18:19TBLG. Goncalves(J. Guentzel, A. Cirelli)4–3
  4. 19:15TBLN. Kucherovempty net(D. Raddysh)5–3

score reads TBL–LAK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.28
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.022
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
55.1%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.28Expected goals2.86
TBL 60% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal20
6High-danger chances5
59All attempts (Corsi)48
Adjusted for score: TBL 58% · LAK 42%
Faceoffs · LAK won46%off50%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL4 / 6 · 2.11 xG
LAK2 / 5 · 1.15 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL1 / 13 · 1.57 xG
LAK0 / 11 · 1.14 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL0 / 40 · 0.59 xG
LAK1 / 32 · 0.58 xG

TBL went 4-for-6 from high danger on 2.11 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
5 G · 4.28 xG · +0.7
LAK
3 G · 2.86 xG · +0.1
0123456

TBL finished +0.7 against expected, LAK +0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
WRIST2/17
SLAP0/7
SNAP0/6
BACKHAND3/5
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/21
LAK
WRIST1/21
SLAP0/6
SNAP2/4
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/12
TBL
LAK
Off the rush
4 G on 25
3.29 xG
2 G on 22
2.05 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.51 xG
0 G on 3
0.33 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-17, LAK 1-for-21. 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
J. Johansson
TBL · 17/20 · .850
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.1-0.8
Medium0/111.1+1.1
Low1/320.6-0.4

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

D. Kuemper
LAK · 19/23 · .826
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/62.1-1.9
Medium1/131.6+0.6
Low0/400.6+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

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
38 shots
5
Final
74 shots
LAK
36 shots
3
TBL attackLAK attack
TBL LAK Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, LAK 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
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:51 on ice · +3
C. Perry
#10 · R · LAK
0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 11:29 on ice
D. Raddysh
#43 · D · TBL
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 24:55 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 1
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:43 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 2.4–2.5 goal margin and gives the Kings a 50% win probability. This is as close to a pure toss-up as the regular season offers.

The gap between these teams at five-on-five is negligible. Tampa Bay leads in expected goals share at 54.0% to Los Angeles' 52.0%, and in Corsi at 53.0% to 52.0%. These are the margins of sampling noise—control-the-play advantages that have not yet fully translated to scoring. The Lightning's PDO of 1.019 flags the outlier: they're outscoring what their underlying shot quality alone predicts, while the Kings' 1.002 sits closer to league baseline. Regression toward the mean typically punishes hot teams more than it rewards cold ones, which tilts this matchup subtly toward Los Angeles over time.

Rest enters as a tiebreaker. The Kings arrive on two days between games; the Lightning on zero. That asymmetry has measured value in modern hockey—not decisive, but enough to matter when else is this even.

Tampa's offense rests on Brandon Hagel, generating 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes and converting at 15.8% on 23 goals and 26 assists, with two high-danger tallies. Anthony Cirelli operates at 0.95 xG/60 with five high-danger goals and a 17.0% shooting rate, suggesting he has beaten the odds—the kind of variance the Lightning's overall PDO hints at.

Los Angeles leans on Alex Laferriere, who sits at 0.87 xG/60, 16 goals and 18 assists, with two high-danger goals and 9.9% shooting efficiency. That conversion rate is the inverse of Cirelli's: below-average finishing. Jared Wright contributes 0.83 xG/60 on limited production, four assists without a goal.

Both teams have struggled to translate high-danger chances into rebound goals or second-chance scoring—each registers 0% on those metrics—suggesting goaltending or defensive positioning is neutralizing close-range chaos. Tampa's weak point defensively is Victor Hedman; Los Angeles cannot afford to break down when Adrian Kempe's coverage lapses.

The model sees this as symmetrical because the underlying shot metrics are, and the variance in conversion rates suggests neither team is running an offensive system that will hold. The rest edge goes to the Kings, the hot hand to the Lightning. When everything aligns this evenly, the better option is to trust the coin.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 51%
50%
LAK
Model favorite
50%
50%
TBL50LAK

LAK by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.4–2.5 LAK; 19% 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 →LAK
54.0%52.0%
53.0%52.0%
2.672.42
2.282.20
2.381.85
1.851.71
1.0191.002

TBL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.002) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 0–10
TBL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
LAK
3-5-2
-4 GD · 2d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Kings have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TBL
Expected in goal
—
no game on file

No completed game on file for this club yet.

LAK
Expected in goal
A. Forsberg
2 days rest.840 last start
Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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
LAK
Alex Laferriere16G 18A
0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
Jared Wright0G 4A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Keep going

Where to next