Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
← Fri, Jan 16 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at STL

Blues steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

Final / OTFri, Jan 16
TBLTampa Bay Lightning2STLSt. Louis Blues3
The verdict · stolen

The Blues stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.24–1.97 and won anyway.

TBL 2 · STL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:03 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

St. Louis won 3–2 in a shootout despite controlling just 32% of the xG battle (1.97–4.24). The Lightning's 68% share should have delivered a win; it didn't. That gap defines the night.

J. Hofer made the difference. The Blues netminder stopped 34 of 36 shots (0.944 SV%), outperforming his expected save percentage by 2.24 goals. Against a Lightning team that generated high-danger chances at 4–2 and converted power-play looks at 1.30 xG, Hofer's overperformance was the margin.

A. Vasilevskiy's 19 of 21 saves (0.905 SV%) were solid, but the workload tilted toward Tampa Bay. The Lightning were lethal off the rush—two goals on 33 chances. The Blues held 37% of shot attempts. Possession didn't decide the game.

Jordan Kyrou's backhander from the slot in the shootout ended the standoff.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Jan 16
TBL
2
STL
3

Blues steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

Chances 4.2 – 2.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
4.24
STL
1.97
68% of the chances32%

The board read TBL 2, STL 3. The chances read TBL 4.2, STL 2.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
+1.0
goals above expected
STL1.97 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL4.24 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning left 2.2 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 17:03STLJ. Neighbours0–1
  2. P1 17:33STLN. Bjugstad0–2
  3. P2 09:59TBLN. KucherovPP1–2
  4. P2 11:01TBLO. BjorkstrandPP2–2
  5. SO 00:00STLJ. KyrouPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
66 shots
2
Final
100 shots
STL
34 shots
3
TBL attackSTL attack
TBL STL Goal
66
shots · 2 in
34
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLSTL
0 / 4
0.87 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.44 xG
2 / 21
2.29 xG
Medium
0 / 10
1.10 xG
0 / 49
1.08 xG
Low
1 / 30
0.43 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Hofer
+2.2
STL · 34/36
C
A. Vasilevskiy
−0.0
TBL · 19/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues steal one from the Lightning 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 11–7
  1. 17:03STLJ. Neighbours(J. Kyrou, C. Fowler)0–1
  2. 17:33STLN. Bjugstad(P. Buchnevich)0–2
2ndshots 15–5
  1. 09:59TBLN. Kucherovpower play(B. Hagel, D. Raddysh)1–2
  2. 11:01TBLO. Bjorkstrandpower play(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)2–2
3rdshots 8–5no goals
    OTshots 2–4no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00STLJ. Kyroupower play2–2

      score reads TBL–STL

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      1.97
      STL chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      +1.0
      Finishing
      Goals above what those chances were worth
      1.021
      STL puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      36.2%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      4.24Expected goals1.97
      TBL 68% of the chance quality
      36Shots on goal21
      4High-danger chances2
      74All attempts (Corsi)42
      Adjusted for score: TBL 65% · STL 35%
      Faceoffs · STL won29%off53%neu58%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      TBL0 / 4 · 0.87 xG
      STL1 / 2 · 0.44 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      TBL2 / 21 · 2.29 xG
      STL0 / 10 · 1.10 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      TBL0 / 49 · 1.08 xG
      STL1 / 30 · 0.43 xG

      STL went 0-for-10 from medium danger on 1.10 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      TBL
      2 G · 4.24 xG · -2.2
      STL
      3 G · 1.97 xG · +1.0
      012345

      TBL finished -2.2 against expected, STL +1.0.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      TBL
      WRIST1/26
      SNAP0/14
      SLAP1/16
      TIP IN0/4
      BACKHAND0/2
      BAT0/0
      POKE0/1
      DEFLECTED0/0
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      OTHER0/11
      STL
      WRIST2/21
      SNAP0/4
      SLAP0/1
      TIP IN0/0
      BACKHAND0/2
      BAT0/2
      POKE0/0
      DEFLECTED0/1
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      OTHER0/10
      TBL
      STL
      Off the rush
      2 G on 33
      2.68 xG
      1 G on 17
      1.07 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 4
      0.51 xG
      1 G on 4
      0.71 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 1-for-26, STL 2-for-21. 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
      A. Vasilevskiy
      TBL · 19/21 · .905
      -0.0
      saved above expected
      C
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/20.4-0.6
      Medium0/101.1+1.1
      Low1/300.4-0.6

      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

      J. Hofer
      STL · 34/36 · .944
      +2.2
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/40.9+0.9
      Medium2/212.3+0.3
      Low0/491.1+1.1

      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

      100 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      TBL
      66 shots
      2
      Final
      100 shots
      STL
      34 shots
      3
      TBL attackSTL attack
      TBL STL Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, STL 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 · 6 SOG · 27:01 on ice · -1
      N. Kucherov
      #86 · R · TBL
      1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 23:37 on ice · -2
      B. Hagel
      #38 · L · TBL
      0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 25:43 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Fri, Jan 16
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:59 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 2.5–2.4 Lightning victory with Tampa Bay at 52% win probability—as close to a pick'em as the numbers allow.

      Tampa Bay owns the underlying play. The Lightning generate 54.0% of expected goals at 5v5, compared to 49.0% for St. Louis—a genuine edge in shot quality and volume. Corsi reinforces the dominance: Tampa Bay drives 53.0% of shot attempts, meaning the puck spends the afternoon in St. Louis territory. The Lightning are the better 5v5 team.

      The catch is sample noise. Tampa Bay's PDO sits at 1.019—roughly one full goal's worth of variance above expectation. St. Louis operates at a cleaner 1.000. Some of the Lightning's margin depends on puck luck that won't sustain; expect regression.

      Brandon Hagel is the engine for Tampa Bay. He's averaging 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes, a phenomenal rate, and has translated it into 23 goals on a 15.8% shooting percentage. He owns 2 high-danger chances, meaning he's generating the kind of looks that finish. Anthony Cirelli, averaging 0.95 xG/60, carries 15 goals and 18 assists with 5 high-danger chances—a secondary scoring threat with elite efficiency. Cirelli's shooting percentage checks in at 17.0%, well above average, so some regression is inevitable there too.

      Jimmy Snuggerud is St. Louis's most efficient producer. At 0.86 xG/60, he ranks below the Lightning's top two but still in the elite echelon. He has 15 goals and 22 assists with 2 high-danger chances on a modest 11.9% shooting rate—room for either improvement or decline. Dylan Holloway rounds out the matchup: 0.82 xG/60, 13 goals and 24 assists, 1 high-danger chance, and 10.8% shooting. Holloway's assist totals suggest playmaking over shot volume, which fits a secondary role.

      The underlying territorial advantage belongs to Tampa Bay. St. Louis will need to limit high-danger chances and lean on goaltending to stay close. The Lightning's efficiency numbers, while real, have built-in regression risk that could tighten what looks like a comfortable edge.

      This is essentially even money. Take the model at face value.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      TBL 52%
      52%
      TBL
      Model favorite
      52%
      48%
      TBL50STL

      TBL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.5–2.4 STL; 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 →STL
      54.0%49.0%
      53.0%48.0%
      2.672.34
      2.282.40
      2.382.00
      1.852.12
      1.0191.000

      TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.000) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · No games yet
      TBL
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      STL
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      1.019
      TBL PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.000
      STL 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 49.0%.
      • 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 49.0%.
      • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
      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
      STL
      Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
      0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
      Dylan Holloway13G 24A
      0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page