Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · COL at TBL

Lightning hold off the Avalanche

FinalTue, Jan 6

COLColorado Avalanche2 TBLTampa Bay Lightning4

The verdict · earned

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

COL 2 · TBL 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:22 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

Tampa's 4-2 win was built on efficiency, not volume. The Lightning controlled 57% of 5v5 expected goals (4.93–3.71) despite holding just 46% of shot attempts (28–33)—a gap that reflected superior chance quality. They generated 0.074 xG per shot; Colorado mustered 0.055.

The Avalanche couldn't convert their chances. They underperformed their xG by 1.71 goals—a deficit too large for S. Wedgewood to overcome despite his 1.93 goals saved above expected (24/27, 0.889 SV%). The Lightning countered with A. Vasilevskiy's own standout work: 31/33 saves (0.939 SV%), 1.71 goals saved above expected.

The rush was where the Lightning imposed their will: 3 goals on 28 rush chances, beginning with Anthony Cirelli's snap shot from the point (P3, 18:35). D. Raddysh (2A, 24:39) and B. Hagel (1G, 1A, 17:39) drove the scoring, with N. Kucherov adding two assists in 16:20.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 6

COL

TBL

Lightning hold off the Avalanche

Chances 3.7 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

COL

3.71

TBL

4.93

43% of the chances57%

The board read COL 2, TBL 4. The chances read COL 3.7, TBL 4.9.

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

Luck check

TBL

−0.9

goals above expected

TBL4.93 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

COL3.71 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Avalanche left 1.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 19:48TBLJ. GuentzelPP0–1
P2 03:22COLP. Kelly1–1
P2 09:31COLB. Nelson2–1
P2 17:22TBLZ. Girgensons2–2
P3 08:31TBLB. Hagel2–3
P3 18:35TBLA. CirelliEN2–4

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

Where the shots came from

COL

46 shots

Final

94 shots

TBL

48 shots

COL TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

COLTBL

1 / 6

1.55 xG

High danger

2 / 6

2.49 xG

0 / 12

1.33 xG

Medium

2 / 17

1.86 xG

1 / 49

0.83 xG

Low

0 / 44

0.57 xG

The Lightning buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

S. Wedgewood

+1.9

COL · 24/27

A. Vasilevskiy

+1.7

TBL · 31/33

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning hold off the Avalanche

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 7–12

19:48TBLJ. Guentzelpower play(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)0–1

2ndshots 13–10

03:22COLP. Kelly(Z. Bardakov, I. Solovyov)1–1
09:31COLB. Nelson(C. Makar)2–1
17:22TBLZ. Girgensons(Y. Gourde, P. Holmberg)2–2

3rdshots 13–6

08:31TBLB. Hagel(M. Crozier, N. Kucherov)2–3
18:35TBLA. Cirelliempty net(B. Hagel, D. Raddysh)2–4

score reads COL–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.93

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.9

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.030

TBL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.71Expected goals4.93

TBL 57% of the chance quality

33Shots on goal28

6High-danger chances6

67All attempts (Corsi)67

Adjusted for score: COL 51% · TBL 49%

Faceoffs · TBL won35%off31%neu23%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

COL1 / 6 · 1.55 xG

TBL2 / 6 · 2.49 xG

Medium dangermid-range

COL0 / 12 · 1.33 xG

TBL2 / 17 · 1.86 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

COL1 / 49 · 0.83 xG

TBL0 / 44 · 0.57 xG

COL went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.33 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

COL

2 G · 3.71 xG · -1.7

TBL

4 G · 4.93 xG · -0.9

0123456

COL finished -1.7 against expected, TBL -0.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

COL

WRIST1/19

SLAP0/11

SNAP1/9

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/21

TBL

WRIST1/30

SLAP0/6

SNAP2/5

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/19

COL

TBL

Off the rush

1 G on 22

1.90 xG

3 G on 28

2.41 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5

0.94 xG

0 G on 4

0.46 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 1-for-19, TBL 1-for-30. 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

S. Wedgewood

COL · 24/27 · .889

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/62.5+0.5

Medium2/171.9-0.1

Low0/440.6+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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 31/33 · .939

+1.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.6+0.6

Medium0/121.3+1.3

Low1/490.8-0.2

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

94 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

COL

46 shots

Final

94 shots

TBL

48 shots

COL TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — COL 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

D. Raddysh

#43 · D · TBL

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 24:39 on ice · +2

B. Hagel

#38 · L · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:39 on ice · +2

N. Kucherov

#86 · R · TBL

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:20 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 6

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:20 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 gives this game 51% Avalanche probability. There is no edge here. The projection is 2.7 goals for Colorado, 2.6 for Tampa Bay—a differential so small it amounts to statistical noise.

Colorado arrives as the territorial aggressor. The Avalanche hold 57.0% Corsi, which translates to sustained possession advantage; their 57.0% xG% confirms they're controlling volume, not luck. Both teams are running hot on PDO—Colorado at 1.021, Tampa Bay at 1.019—meaning both should expect regression when variance normalizes.

Artturi Lehkonen anchors Colorado's offense at 1.11 xG/60 with 18 goals, 6 high-danger finishes, and a 14.9% shooting rate that signals above-average finishing discipline. Ross Colton provides secondary punch at 1.10 xG/60 with 7 goals and 15 assists; his 4.9% shooting suggests opportunity for correction or breakthrough. For Tampa Bay, Brandon Hagel leads at 1.10 xG/60 with 23 goals, 2 high-danger finishes, and a 15.8% conversion that reflects elite trigger discipline. Anthony Cirelli operates at a lower rate—0.95 xG/60—but carries 15 goals and a 17.0% shooting percentage that indicates careful shot selection.

Defensively, Nazem Kadri represents Colorado's weak link; Victor Hedman serves that role for Tampa Bay. Neither team has generated meaningful high-danger or rebound production, capping the chaos-factor finishes available to either side.

Colorado's possession edge—57.0% Corsi—offers a technical advantage. But both teams' PDO should normalize downward, eliminating Colorado's current statistical edge. The Avalanche's superior shot-volume dominance suggests marginal favor, yet 51% probability captures the reality: this is a coin flip with no conviction warranted for either side.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 51%

51%

COL

Model favorite

51%

49%

COL50TBL

COL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score COL 2.7–2.6 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

COL← edge

edge →TBL

57.0%54.0%

57.0%53.0%

3.032.67

2.302.28

2.632.38

1.561.85

1.0211.019

COL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 1.019) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

COL

9-1-0

+20 GD · 2d rest

TBL

7-2-1

+10 GD · 3d rest

1.021

COL 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 Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

COL

Expected in goal

S. Wedgewood

2 days rest.920 last start

Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL

Expected in goal

A. Vasilevskiy

3 days rest.864 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

COL

Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A

1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh

Ross Colton7G 15A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% 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