Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Tue, Jan 13 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at PIT

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Penguins

Final / OTTue, Jan 13
TBLTampa Bay Lightning2PITPittsburgh Penguins1
The verdict · stolen

The Lightning stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.12–4.12 and won anyway.

TBL 2 · PIT 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:32 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

Tampa Bay's 2-1 shootout win over Pittsburgh masks a lopsided performance: the Penguins generated 57% of expected goals but came up empty. This was theft.

The Penguins controlled the game in aggregate. They held 47% of shot attempts (27-31 on goal) and created high-danger chances at a higher rate (0.079 xG per shot versus 0.051 for Tampa Bay). They recorded four high-danger chances to the Lightning's three. Yet they finished with 1.12 goals below expectation—wasted quality.

A. Vasilevskiy made the difference. The Lightning goalie stopped 26 of 27 shots (0.963 save percentage) and saved 3.12 goals above expected, turning what should have been a blowout into a win. His counterpart, A. Silovs, posted nearly identical numbers (30/31, 0.968 SV%, +2.12 expected) but couldn't overcome the underlying deficit.

Pittsburgh's inefficiency had a pattern. The team crashed the net, creating three rebound opportunities—and converted zero. It's the kind of small-sample variance that hockey permits: dominant underlying play derailed by execution. Meanwhile, Tampa Bay didn't earn this win by dominating; it earned it by enduring. The Lightning underperformed their own expected goals by 1.12.

The deciding factor came in the shootout. Nikita Kucherov converted from the slot, a moment that encapsulates the night: when everything else said Pittsburgh, talent said Tampa Bay.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Jan 13
TBL
2
PIT
1

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Penguins

Chances 3.1 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.12
PIT
4.12
43% of the chances57%

The board read TBL 2, PIT 1. The chances read TBL 3.1, PIT 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−1.1
goals above expected
TBL3.12 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT4.12 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 3.1 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. P3 14:13TBLJ. Moser1–0
  2. P3 17:44PITE. MalkinPP1–1
  3. SO 00:00TBLG. GoncalvesPP1–1
  4. SO 00:00PITE. ChinakhovPP1–1
  5. SO 00:00TBLN. KucherovPP1–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
48 shots
3
Final
93 shots
PIT
45 shots
2
TBL attackPIT attack
TBL PIT Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

48
shots · 3 in
45
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLPIT
0 / 3
0.72 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.23 xG
1 / 16
1.71 xG
Medium
1 / 22
2.51 xG
0 / 42
0.69 xG
Low
0 / 26
0.39 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Vasilevskiy
+3.1
TBL · 26/27
A
A. Silovs
+2.1
PIT · 30/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Vasilevskiy stands tall as the Lightning edge the Penguins

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 10–8no goals
    2ndshots 9–9no goals
      3rdshots 11–6
      1. 14:13TBLJ. Moser(Y. Gourde, Z. Girgensons)1–0
      2. 17:44PITE. Malkinpower play(K. Letang)1–1
      OTshots 1–4no goals
        SO
        1. 00:00TBLG. Goncalvespower play1–1
        2. 00:00PITE. Chinakhovpower play1–1
        3. 00:00TBLN. Kucherovpower play1–1

        score reads TBL–PIT

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

        The numbers

        XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
        3.12
        TBL chances
        Goals their shots were worth
        −1.1
        Finishing
        Goals below what those chances were worth
        0.997
        TBL puck luck
        About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
        54.0%
        Shot attempts
        Over half — they had the puck more
        Split by club

        Who controlled the game

        3.12Expected goals4.12
        PIT 57% of the chance quality
        31Shots on goal27
        3High-danger chances4
        61All attempts (Corsi)52
        Adjusted for score: TBL 54% · PIT 46%
        Faceoffs · PIT won85%off39%neu50%def
        Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
        How the game was won

        The danger ladder

        shotsgoalsexpected
        High dangerslot & crease
        TBL0 / 3 · 0.72 xG
        PIT0 / 4 · 1.23 xG
        Medium dangermid-range
        TBL1 / 16 · 1.71 xG
        PIT1 / 22 · 2.51 xG
        Low dangerperimeter & point
        TBL0 / 42 · 0.69 xG
        PIT0 / 26 · 0.39 xG

        PIT went 1-for-22 from medium danger on 2.51 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

        Finishing vs expected

        expectedactual
        TBL
        2 G · 3.12 xG · -1.1
        PIT
        1 G · 4.12 xG · -3.1
        012345

        TBL finished -1.1 against expected, PIT -3.1.

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

        Shot diet

        goalsshots
        TBL
        WRIST0/30
        TIP IN0/7
        SLAP0/6
        BACKHAND1/1
        SNAP0/1
        OTHER0/16
        PIT
        WRIST1/23
        TIP IN0/8
        SLAP0/4
        BACKHAND0/5
        SNAP0/3
        OTHER0/9
        TBL
        PIT
        Off the rush
        0 G on 28
        2.23 xG
        1 G on 30
        3.37 xG
        Off rebounds
        0 G on 1
        0.19 xG
        0 G on 3
        0.44 xG

        Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 0-for-30, PIT 1-for-23.

        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 · 26/27 · .963
        +3.1
        saved above expected
        A+
        the night
        By dangerG/attxGsaved
        High danger0/41.2+1.2
        Medium1/222.5+1.5
        Low0/260.4+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

        A. Silovs
        PIT · 30/31 · .968
        +2.1
        saved above expected
        A
        the night
        By dangerG/attxGsaved
        High danger0/30.7+0.7
        Medium1/161.7+0.7
        Low0/420.7+0.7

        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

        93 shots · press play to watch the game back

        Where the shots came from

        NHL play-by-play coordinates
        TBL
        48 shots
        3
        Final
        93 shots
        PIT
        45 shots
        2
        TBL attackPIT attack
        TBL PIT Goal

        Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

        Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, PIT 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
        J. Moser
        #90 · D · TBL
        1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 25:54 on ice
        K. Letang
        #58 · D · PIT
        0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 25:13 on ice
        E. Malkin
        #71 · C · PIT
        1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:20 on ice · +1
        Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
        What the model said beforehand

        Before the game

        Written Tue, Jan 13
        Open the pre-game read
        Written from the numbers

        The read

        Edited for clarity
        ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:31 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 projection model sees this as a perfect coin flip: 2.6 goals for Tampa Bay and 2.6 for Pittsburgh, with the Lightning at precisely 50% win probability. That's the rarest outcome in sports betting — one team has no edge at all.

        Tampa Bay does control the underlying play. The Lightning generate 54.0% of expected goals at 5-on-5, compared to Pittsburgh's 51.0%. The territorial advantage mirrors this: 53.0% Corsi% for Tampa Bay versus 50.0% for Pittsburgh. If you squint at raw shot volume and quality, the Lightning should win. The models are telling you Tampa Bay plays better.

        But the Lightning's 1.019 PDO sits above the statistical mean, while Pittsburgh's 1.012 rests just barely elevated. Tampa Bay is converting at a rate slightly hotter than underlying play would sustain — luck is embedded in their results. The implication: expect some regression.

        Tampa Bay has been the hotter team by calendar, at 9-1-0 in their last ten games. That pace doesn't reflect a fundamentally lopsided matchup. This form run could signal true recent improvement, or it could be the PDO story again — a team playing well-enough to generate the right xG but also finishing chances at an unsustainable clip. Either way, the models are skeptical of maintaining this edge.

        For Tampa Bay, Brandon Hagel is the engine. He generates 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes at 5-on-5, has 23 goals and 26 assists on the season, and carries a 15.8% shooting percentage. He's posted 2 high-danger chances as goals — that's scoring well above the roster average. Anthony Cirelli operates at 0.95 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists; his 17.0% shooting percentage is an outlier on the roster.

        Pittsburgh's Filip Hallander is likely unavailable. Rickard Rakell is the key name on Pittsburgh's side: 1.01 xG/60, 13 goals and 13 assists, 12.1% shooting, with 3 high-danger goals. He's efficient relative to his chances.

        The defensive gaps tell the story. Tampa Bay's Victor Hedman carries elevated risk; Pittsburgh's Caleb Jones does too. Both teams have suppressed Grade-A scoring — 0% high-danger-goal rate and 0% rebound-goal rate. That's an unusual alignment: both vulnerable at the house yet neither is being punished there.

        The models have called this correctly. No edges. No lean. The game genuinely depends on who capitalizes on their limited openings, which in hockey often means randomness decides it.

        What the model said beforehand

        The model's lean

        TBL 50%
        50%
        TBL
        Model favorite
        50%
        50%
        TBL50PIT

        TBL by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.6 PIT; 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
        TBL← edge
        edge →PIT
        54.0%51.0%
        53.0%50.0%
        2.672.66
        2.282.55
        2.382.45
        1.852.12
        1.0191.012

        TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.012) 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 · 2d rest
        PIT
        7-3-0
        +12 GD · 2d rest
        1.019
        TBL PDO
        Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
        1.012
        PIT 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.
        • 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
        2 days rest.900 last start
        Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

        No completed game on file for this club yet.

        PIT
        Expected in goal
        S. Skinner
        2 days rest.947 last start
        Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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
        PIT
        Filip Hallander0G 3A
        1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
        Rickard Rakell13G 13A
        1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
        Keep going

        Where to next

        Back to the front page