Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · TBL at PHI

J. Johansson stands tall as the Lightning edge the Flyers

FinalMon, Jan 12

TBLTampa Bay Lightning5 PHIPhiladelphia Flyers1

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 5 · PHI 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:29 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 5–1 scoreline flattered Tampa. Expected goals split 3.68–4.40, nominally favoring the Lightning but suggesting a one-goal contest. J. Johansson's goaltending — +2.68 against expectation — and Philadelphia's collapse on high-danger chances (0/6) inflated the margin.

Johansson turned in a clinic on quality looks: 100% save percentage on six high-danger shots. D. Vladar, by contrast, finished at 0.840, underperforming his expected performance on 21 of 25 attempts. The gap between the goaltenders created a swing of roughly 2.7 goals.

The Flyers generated meaningful chances but couldn't finish. They held 45% of shot attempts (21 on goal to 26) and created three rebound opportunities that yielded nothing. Philadelphia underperformed expected goals by 2.68 — a gap that should have cost no more than one goal.

The Lightning found their finish on the rush, scoring 2 goals on 24 chances, but the real difference was the power play: 2 goals on 14 shots, generating 1.24 expected goals and striking when it counted. Tampa's advantage materialized through precision, not volume.

This wasn't a dominant Lightning performance masked by execution. It was a close underlying battle where one goaltender played flawlessly and the opposing offense couldn't finish. Johansson stole the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 12

TBL

PHI

J. Johansson stands tall as the Lightning edge the Flyers

Chances 4.4 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TBL

4.40

PHI

3.68

54% of the chances46%

The board read TBL 5, PHI 1. The chances read TBL 4.4, PHI 3.7.

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

Luck check

TBL

+0.6

goals above expected

TBL4.40 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

PHI3.68 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Flyers left 2.7 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 01:10TBLP. Holmberg1–0
P2 00:33TBLJ. Guentzel2–0
P2 04:29TBLB. PointPP3–0
P2 05:40PHIC. Dvorak3–1
P2 19:29TBLB. HagelPP4–1
P3 16:39TBLN. KucherovEN5–1

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

Where the shots came from

TBL

37 shots

Final

75 shots

PHI

38 shots

TBL PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TBLPHI

2 / 8

2.17 xG

High danger

0 / 6

1.51 xG

2 / 14

1.75 xG

Medium

1 / 15

1.76 xG

1 / 33

0.47 xG

Low

0 / 31

0.41 xG

The Flyers went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

J. Johansson

+2.7

TBL · 20/21

D. Vladar

+0.4

PHI · 21/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

J. Johansson stands tall as the Lightning edge 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 6–5

01:10TBLP. Holmberg(Z. Girgensons, Y. Gourde)1–0

2ndshots 14–10

00:33TBLJ. Guentzel(E. Cernak, B. Hagel)2–0
04:29TBLB. Pointpower play(O. Bjorkstrand, J. Guentzel)3–0
05:40PHIC. Dvorak3–1
19:29TBLB. Hagelpower play(D. Raddysh, N. Kucherov)4–1

3rdshots 6–6

16:39TBLN. Kucherovempty net(D. Raddysh, A. Cirelli)5–1

score reads TBL–PHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.40

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.072

TBL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

51.4%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.40Expected goals3.68

TBL 54% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal21

8High-danger chances6

55All attempts (Corsi)52

Adjusted for score: TBL 45% · PHI 55%

Faceoffs · PHI won63%off73%neu57%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TBL2 / 8 · 2.17 xG

PHI0 / 6 · 1.51 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TBL2 / 14 · 1.75 xG

PHI1 / 15 · 1.76 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TBL1 / 33 · 0.47 xG

PHI0 / 31 · 0.41 xG

PHI went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.51 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TBL

5 G · 4.40 xG · +0.6

PHI

1 G · 3.68 xG · -2.7

0123456

TBL finished +0.6 against expected, PHI -2.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TBL

WRIST2/8

SNAP1/16

TIP IN0/5

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND1/2

DEFLECTED1/1

OTHER0/18

PHI

WRIST1/19

SNAP0/8

TIP IN0/5

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/14

TBL

PHI

Off the rush

2 G on 24

2.96 xG

1 G on 25

2.80 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 5

0.78 xG

0 G on 3

0.55 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-8, PHI 1-for-19. TBL scored 2 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 · 20/21 · .952

+2.7

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.5+1.5

Medium1/151.8+0.8

Low0/310.4+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. Vladar

PHI · 21/25 · .840

+0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/82.2+0.2

Medium2/141.8-0.3

Low1/330.5-0.5

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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TBL

37 shots

Final

75 shots

PHI

38 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

D. Raddysh

#43 · D · TBL

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 25:17 on ice · +1

B. Hagel

#38 · L · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:21 on ice · +2

N. Kucherov

#86 · R · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 18:40 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Jan 12

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:27 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 Tampa Bay at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Recent form favors the Lightning. They've won nine of their last ten games, commanding the underlying play through a 54.0% xG% and 53.0% Corsi%. This signals clear territorial tilt—Tampa controls ice position and shot quality. But their 1.019 PDO reveals a critical caveat: they're running hot. Teams with inflated PDOs regress, and that regression is coming.

Philadelphia's foundation appears healthier, if less dominant. They trail in shot quality (51.0% xG%) and territorial possession (48.0% Corsi%), yet their 1.008 PDO sits more sustainable. This is a team that's been outplayed but hasn't yet paid the full price for it—a dangerous spot.

Goaltending introduces chaos. Both S. Ersson and A. Vasilevskiy face back-to-back duty. Expect tired legs, possibly a backup start, or both. Neither team gains a clean edge.

Tampa's advantage materializes through elite finishing. Brandon Hagel operates at 1.10 xG/60 with 23 goals and a 15.8% shooting rate—he finds dangerous areas and converts them. Anthony Cirelli shadows him at 0.95 xG/60 with 15 goals on an even more remarkable 17.0% shooting clip. Victor Hedman remains Tampa's defensive weak spot; Philadelphia should target him.

Philadelphia answers with Owen Tippett (0.88 xG/60, 19 goals, 12.1% shooting) and Christian Dvorak (0.81 xG/60, 12 goals, 11.2% shooting). Dvorak also serves as the team's defensive liability. Both create dangerous chances, but their conversion rates can't match Tampa's precision finishers.

The script: Tampa dominates possession, Philadelphia generates scrappy opportunities, and conversion decides a true toss-up. The model understands this dynamic perfectly. Trust the 51%.

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

9-1-0

+21 GD · 1d rest

PHI

5-3-2

+0 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.
S. Ersson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Vasilevskiy is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Lightning are the hotter team by points pace (9-1-0 in their last 10).
The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TBL

Expected in goal

A. Vasilevskiy

back-to-back.900 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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.

PHI

Expected in goal

S. Ersson

back-to-back.696 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