Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
Breakdown · FLA at OTT

Panthers steal one from the Senators against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Panthers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.91–4.32 and won anyway.

FLA 3 · OTT 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:11 AMxG: 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 Panthers edged the Senators 3–2 despite losing the expected goals battle decisively—Ottawa controlled 69% of the xG, a 4.32–1.91 split that barely hints at how thoroughly they dominated play. This was a heist.

Goaltending decided it. S. Bobrovsky made 17 of 19 saves and finished 2.32 goals better than expected, turning near-certain conversions into stops. Across the net, L. Meriläinen made 18 of 21 and gave up 1.09 more than the chances warranted, a performance that makes the scoreboard even more brutal for Ottawa.

The Senators had the dangerous looks. They generated eight high-danger chances to Florida's one, and if this were a shootout of quality, Ottawa wins 8–1. They were lethal on the rush—two goals from 27 chances—and crashed hard enough to create six rebound opportunities. The problem: they converted zero of eight from high-danger areas. That inefficiency is rare; it killed them.

Florida did the math differently. Three goals from 23 rush attempts, and critically, two from low-danger spots where even a competent goalie pockets them. The Panthers didn't have the underlying metrics, but they had Bobrovsky and the ability to punish the margin.

The turning point arrived at 18:18 of the third when Drake Batherson tipped one from the doorstep—a moment that should have shifted momentum, but Florida's resilience through the night meant Ottawa never quite seized control.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 10
FLA
3
OTT
2

Panthers steal one from the Senators against the run of play

Chances 1.9 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
1.91
OTT
4.32
31% of the chances69%

The board read FLA 3, OTT 2. The chances read FLA 1.9, OTT 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
+1.1
goals above expected
FLA1.91 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT4.32 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators left 2.3 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 04:03OTTF. Zetterlund0–1
  2. P1 11:34FLAE. RodriguesPP1–1
  3. P2 13:13FLAC. VerhaeghePP2–1
  4. P3 03:48FLAG. Forsling3–1
  5. P3 18:18OTTD. BathersonPP3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
32 shots
3
Final
76 shots
OTT
44 shots
2
FLA attackOTT attack
FLA OTT Goal
32
shots · 3 in
44
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLAOTT
0 / 1
0.21 xG
High danger
0 / 8
1.75 xG
1 / 12
1.14 xG
Medium
2 / 15
1.97 xG
2 / 34
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 28
0.59 xG

The Senators went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Bobrovsky
+2.3
FLA · 17/19
D-
L. Meriläinen
−1.1
OTT · 18/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers steal one from the Senators against the run of play

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 8–5
  1. 04:03OTTF. Zetterlund(S. Pinto, C. Giroux)0–1
  2. 11:34FLAE. Rodriguespower play(A. Ekblad)1–1
2ndshots 8–7
  1. 13:13FLAC. Verhaeghepower play(G. Forsling, A. Lundell)2–1
3rdshots 5–7
  1. 03:48FLAG. Forsling(A. Ekblad, C. Verhaeghe)3–1
  2. 18:18OTTD. Bathersonpower play(C. Giroux, J. Sanderson)3–2

score reads FLA–OTT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
1.91
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.025
FLA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
48.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.91Expected goals4.32
OTT 69% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal19
1High-danger chances8
47All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: FLA 46% · OTT 54%
Faceoffs · OTT won75%off55%neu40%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA0 / 1 · 0.21 xG
OTT0 / 8 · 1.75 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA1 / 12 · 1.14 xG
OTT2 / 15 · 1.97 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA2 / 34 · 0.56 xG
OTT0 / 28 · 0.59 xG

OTT went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.75 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
3 G · 1.91 xG · +1.1
OTT
2 G · 4.32 xG · -2.3
012345

FLA finished +1.1 against expected, OTT -2.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
WRIST2/25
TIP IN0/3
SLAP1/2
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/15
OTT
WRIST1/27
TIP IN1/4
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/4
SNAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/7
FLA
OTT
Off the rush
3 G on 23
1.47 xG
2 G on 27
3.33 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 6
0.60 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 2-for-25, OTT 1-for-27. FLA 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. Bobrovsky
FLA · 17/19 · .895
+2.3
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/81.8+1.8
Medium2/152.0-0.0
Low0/280.6+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

L. Meriläinen
OTT · 18/21 · .857
-1.1
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium1/121.1+0.1
Low2/340.6-1.4

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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
32 shots
3
Final
76 shots
OTT
44 shots
2
FLA attackOTT attack
FLA OTT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, OTT 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
G. Forsling
#42 · D · FLA
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:55 on ice
A. Ekblad
#5 · D · FLA
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:27 on ice
C. Giroux
#28 · R · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:15 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 10
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:10 AMEdited 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 2.3–2.7 Florida victory and gives Ottawa a 58% win probability—a lean on the Senators despite recent form. That slight disconnect reflects what the underlying numbers tell: Ottawa controls the play even when results don't reflect it.

Florida has been brutal in its last ten games, posting an 11-goal deficit. Ottawa's deficit sits at minus-7 over the same stretch, which reads as worse in isolation but is actually the story worth watching: the Senators are being outscored despite owning the ice. At 5v5, Ottawa has captured 56.0% expected goals against Florida's 49.0%, suggesting the model is pricing in a normalization of luck.

Both teams' possession metrics align. Ottawa leads in shot attempts at 53.0% Corsi to Florida's 52.0%, another data point that reinforces dominance in controlling pace and geography. The PDO numbers—Florida at 0.989, Ottawa at 0.993—are close enough that luck isn't the primary separator; it's execution and underlying volume.

The goaltending matchup adds volatility. Both Levi Meriläinen and Sergei Bobrovsky are on back-to-backs, which typically invites backup deployments or starter fatigue.

The player-level advantage tilts toward Ottawa's depth. Brady Tkachuk leads at 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes and has compiled 11 goals on a modest 7.5% shooting rate—a sign his goal production is significantly outpacing shot quality, meaning either a ceiling exists for normalization downward or a player finishing at an elite level. Dylan Cozens sits at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals, a more stable profile.

For Florida, Sam Bennett generates 0.97 xG/60 on 18 goals with a 13.1% shooting rate, while Brad Marchand sits at 0.93 xG/60 on 17 goals but an outlier 19.5% shooting rate. Marchand's efficiency is unsustainable; Tkachuk's game is more anchored in volume and placement.

The spread reflects this asymmetry. Ottawa has the underlying edge in shot quality, shot volume, and personnel efficiency. Florida's recent collapse—the magnitude of that minus-11 goal differential—suggests either injury-driven lineup dysfunction or a team in structural decline. Ottawa's smaller recent deficit masks a team controlling its destiny better than Florida, which is getting outplayed and outscored simultaneously.

The model's 58% lean on the Senators prices in the regression that Florida's poor luck must eventually invite, while rewarding Ottawa's superior volume and shot quality. Until form catches process, Ottawa owns this matchup at the macro level.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 58%
58%
OTT
Model favorite
42%
58%
FLA50OTT

OTT by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score FLA 2.3–2.7 OTT; 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
FLA← edge
edge →OTT
49.0%56.0%
52.0%53.0%
2.482.66
2.562.12
1.982.18
2.211.99
0.9890.993

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
FLA
4-5-1
-11 GD · 1d rest
OTT
4-5-1
-7 GD · 1d rest
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • L. Meriläinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • S. Bobrovsky is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Senators are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Panthers are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
FLA
Expected in goal
S. Bobrovsky
back-to-back.737 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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.

OTT
Expected in goal
L. Meriläinen
back-to-back.833 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next