Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · TBL at PHI

Lightning pull away from the Flyers

FinalSat, Jan 10

TBLTampa Bay Lightning7 PHIPhiladelphia Flyers2

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 7 · PHI 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:10 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 Lightning won 7-2, but the scoreline misleads. They controlled 58% of expected goals (3.57–2.58), yet still overperformed their xG by 3.43 goals—a gap that reveals not Tampa's brilliance but Philadelphia's breakdown: S. Ersson surrendered 3.43 more goals than expected.

The Flyers held 46% of shot attempts (20–23 on goal) and generated five high-danger chances to Tampa's eight. They converted zero. Meanwhile, the Lightning punished inefficiency: 4 of 8 high-danger attempts found the net (50%), and they added 6 goals on 24 rush chances. Ersson allowed 3.43 more goals than expected—not unlucky, but decisively outmatched. A. Vasilevskiy, by contrast, posted a 0.900 SV% (+0.58 vs expected), stopping 18 of 20 shots, including all 5 high-danger chances.

The Flyers' collapse centered on high-danger futility: 0 for 5 on their best chances. Tampa's clinical conversion—led by N. Kucherov's 2G, 2A in 14:24 and B. Point's 3A in 13:35—created the illusion of a rout. Philadelphia fought for parity in volume (46% shot attempts) but surrendered quality. The Lightning's 4 rebound opportunities yielded 1 goal; Philadelphia crashed for 3 rebounds and left all empty.

C. D'Astous registered 2A in 20:28, anchoring depth that forced Philly into reactive hockey. Once the Lightning seized momentum on the rush, the Flyers' discipline fractured. The 7-2 final was no blowout by xG—Ersson's performance made it one.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 10

TBL

PHI

Lightning pull away from the Flyers

Chances 3.6 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TBL

3.57

PHI

2.58

58% of the chances42%

The board read TBL 7, PHI 2. The chances read TBL 3.6, PHI 2.6.

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

Luck check

TBL

+3.4

goals above expected

TBL3.57 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

PHI2.58 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Lightning scored 3.4 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 01:49TBLN. Kucherov1–0
P1 04:15PHIG. Hathaway1–1
P1 06:05TBLN. Kucherov2–1
P2 13:37TBLN. Paul3–1
P3 02:03TBLG. Goncalves4–1
P3 03:37TBLB. Hagel5–1
P3 04:45PHIO. TippettPP5–2

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

TBL

37 shots

Final

68 shots

PHI

31 shots

TBL PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 7 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TBLPHI

4 / 8

1.88 xG

High danger

0 / 5

1.16 xG

2 / 12

1.23 xG

Medium

1 / 8

0.84 xG

1 / 32

0.47 xG

Low

1 / 26

0.58 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

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

In the net

A. Vasilevskiy

+0.6

TBL · 18/20

S. Ersson

−3.4

PHI · 16/23

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning pull away from the Flyers

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 7–8

01:49TBLN. Kucherov(B. Point)1–0
04:15PHIG. Hathaway(N. Juulsen, R. Abols)1–1
06:05TBLN. Kucherov(B. Point, C. D'Astous)2–1

2ndshots 8–8

13:37TBLN. Paul(C. D'Astous, A. Cirelli)3–1

3rdshots 8–4

02:03TBLG. Goncalves(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)4–1
03:37TBLB. Hagel(J. Guentzel, A. Cirelli)5–1
04:45PHIO. Tippettpower play(C. Dvorak)5–2
09:00TBLY. Gourde(Z. Girgensons)6–2
11:00TBLG. Goncalves(N. Kucherov, B. Point)7–2

score reads TBL–PHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.57

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+3.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.083

TBL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

57.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.57Expected goals2.58

TBL 58% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal20

8High-danger chances5

52All attempts (Corsi)39

Adjusted for score: TBL 52% · PHI 48%

Faceoffs · PHI won31%off40%neu40%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TBL4 / 8 · 1.88 xG

PHI0 / 5 · 1.16 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TBL2 / 12 · 1.23 xG

PHI1 / 8 · 0.84 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TBL1 / 32 · 0.47 xG

PHI1 / 26 · 0.58 xG

TBL went 4-for-8 from high danger on 1.88 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TBL

7 G · 3.57 xG · +3.4

PHI

2 G · 2.58 xG · -0.6

012345678

TBL finished +3.4 against expected, PHI -0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TBL

SNAP7/23

WRIST0/2

TIP IN0/5

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/4

BAT0/1

OTHER0/15

PHI

SNAP0/8

WRIST0/13

TIP IN1/5

SLAP1/5

BACKHAND0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/8

TBL

PHI

Off the rush

6 G on 24

2.88 xG

1 G on 22

1.68 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.58 xG

0 G on 3

0.66 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 7-for-23, PHI 0-for-8. TBL scored 6 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 · 18/20 · .900

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.2+1.2

Medium1/80.8-0.2

Low1/260.6-0.4

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

S. Ersson

PHI · 16/23 · .696

-3.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger4/81.9-2.1

Medium2/121.2-0.8

Low1/320.5-0.5

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

68 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TBL

37 shots

Final

68 shots

PHI

31 shots

TBL PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, PHI 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 · 2 A · 2 SOG · 14:24 on ice · +4

B. Point

#21 · C · TBL

0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 13:35 on ice · +4

C. D'Astous

#51 · D · TBL

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:28 on ice · +3

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, 12:08 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 2.4–2.4 game with the Lightning at 51% win probability—a genuine toss-up.

Tampa Bay enters this matchup as the hotter team, posting an 8-2-0 record over their last ten games. Their underlying play supports that form: at 5v5, they control 54.0% of expected goals and drive 53.0% of Corsi, suggesting territorial dominance. But their 1.019 PDO signals luck, not excellence. Expect some regression.

Philadelphia faces a rest disadvantage: the Flyers skate tonight on just one day off, while Tampa Bay has three. That gap matters. D. Vladar, meanwhile, works on a back-to-back—a subplot worth monitoring for the Lightning's net.

Brandon Hagel forms the spine of Tampa's attack at 1.10 xG per 60, with 23 goals and a sharp 15.8% shooting rate. He's converted two high-danger chances into goals. Anthony Cirelli complements him at 0.95 xG/60, with 15 goals, an elite 17.0% shooting rate, and five high-danger tallies.

Philadelphia counters with Owen Tippett, who carries 0.88 xG/60 and 19 goals at 12.1% shooting, and Christian Dvorak, working at 0.81 xG/60 with 12 goals at 11.2% shooting. Tippett has two high-danger goals; Dvorak has bagged three.

Victor Hedman represents Tampa's defensive vulnerability, while Dvorak marks a softer spot on the Flyers' back end. In a game this tight, those weak links may determine the outcome.

This is pick'em territory by every metric—the model got it right.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 51%

51%

TBL

Model favorite

51%

49%

TBL50PHI

TBL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.4–2.4 PHI; 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 →PHI

54.0%51.0%

53.0%48.0%

2.672.26

2.282.20

2.381.96

1.851.82

1.0191.008

TBL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.008) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TBL

8-2-0

+13 GD · 3d rest

PHI

5-3-2

+3 GD · 1d rest

1.019

TBL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.008

PHI 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 51.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

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 51.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
D. Vladar is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Lightning 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.
The Lightning have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TBL

Expected in goal

A. Vasilevskiy

3 days rest.939 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PHI

Expected in goal

D. Vladar

back-to-back.913 last start

Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 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

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

PHI

Owen Tippett19G 18A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.1% sh

Christian Dvorak12G 21A

0.81 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.2% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page