Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · TBL at DAL

Lightning run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSun, Jan 18

TBLTampa Bay Lightning4 DALDallas Stars1

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 4 · DAL 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:29 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 Lightning dominated the Stars on both scoreboard and underlying metrics: they controlled 63% of expected goals (4.17–2.44 xG) in a 4–1 win. Dallas's underperformance made the margin decisive—they scored 1 goal on 2.44 xG, a 1.44-goal shortfall.

The numbers behind the result. Dallas held 44% of shot attempts (20–26) while generating 2.44 expected goals. Tampa Bay was lethal in transition: 2 goals on 27 rush chances. Dallas created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted); Tampa Bay created 4 (also 1 converted). The high-danger-chances count (7–5 Tampa) underscored the dominance.

Goaltending. A. Vasilevskiy was exceptional: 19/20 saves, 0.950 SV%, stopping 1.44 goals above expected. J. Oettinger kept Dallas competitive—22/25 saves, 0.880 SV%, +1.17 vs expected—but couldn't overcome his team's inefficiency. Vasilevskiy's performance ensured Tampa's control translated to a decisive scoreline.

The turning point. Pontus Holmberg's snap shot from the wing (P3, 17:59) established the tone early.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 18

TBL

DAL

Lightning run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.2 – 2.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TBL

4.17

DAL

2.44

63% of the chances37%

The board read TBL 4, DAL 1. The chances read TBL 4.2, DAL 2.4.

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

Luck check

TBL

−0.2

goals above expected

TBL4.17 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

DAL2.44 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 04:00DALO. Bäck0–1
P1 08:04TBLD. James1–1
P2 11:04TBLB. Hagel2–1
P2 18:50TBLJ. Guentzel3–1
P3 17:59TBLP. HolmbergEN4–1

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

Where the shots came from

TBL

41 shots

Final

67 shots

DAL

26 shots

TBL DAL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TBLDAL

1 / 7

2.06 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.33 xG

3 / 14

1.62 xG

Medium

0 / 10

0.83 xG

0 / 36

0.50 xG

Low

0 / 27

0.28 xG

High-danger looks: TBL 1 of 7, DAL 1 of 5.

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

In the net

B+

A. Vasilevskiy

+1.4

TBL · 19/20

B+

J. Oettinger

+1.2

DAL · 22/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 5–9

04:00DALO. Bäck(N. Lundkvist, M. Bourque)0–1
08:04TBLD. James(J. Guentzel, C. D'Astous)1–1

2ndshots 15–9

11:04TBLB. Hagel(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)2–1
18:50TBLJ. Guentzel(D. James, O. Bjorkstrand)3–1

3rdshots 6–2

17:59TBLP. Holmbergempty net(Y. Gourde, J. Moser)4–1

score reads TBL–DAL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.17

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.2

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.046

TBL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

57.6%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.17Expected goals2.44

TBL 63% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal20

7High-danger chances5

57All attempts (Corsi)42

Adjusted for score: TBL 55% · DAL 45%

Faceoffs · DAL won67%off44%neu71%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TBL1 / 7 · 2.06 xG

DAL1 / 5 · 1.33 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TBL3 / 14 · 1.62 xG

DAL0 / 10 · 0.83 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TBL0 / 36 · 0.50 xG

DAL0 / 27 · 0.28 xG

TBL went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.62 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TBL

4 G · 4.17 xG · -0.2

DAL

1 G · 2.44 xG · -1.4

012345

TBL finished -0.2 against expected, DAL -1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TBL

SNAP2/19

TIP IN0/8

WRIST1/8

BACKHAND1/2

SLAP0/4

OTHER0/16

DAL

SNAP1/19

TIP IN0/2

WRIST0/1

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/1

OTHER0/16

TBL

DAL

Off the rush

2 G on 27

2.46 xG

0 G on 17

1.45 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.69 xG

1 G on 3

0.87 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-19, DAL 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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 19/20 · .950

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.3+0.3

Medium0/100.8+0.8

Low0/270.3+0.3

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. Oettinger

DAL · 22/25 · .880

+1.2

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/72.1+1.1

Medium3/141.6-1.4

Low0/360.5+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

67 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TBL

41 shots

Final

67 shots

DAL

26 shots

TBL DAL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, DAL 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. Guentzel

#59 · C · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:56 on ice · +2

D. James

#17 · C · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 11:14 on ice · +2

D. Raddysh

#43 · D · TBL

0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:27 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Jan 18

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:46 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 game with the Lightning at 51% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Recent form suggests otherwise: Tampa Bay is 9-0-1 in its last 10, while Dallas sits at -8 goal differential over the same stretch. But the underlying numbers explain why the models aren't swayed.

The Lightning own the 5v5 play by a narrow margin—54.0% expected goals share versus Dallas' 51.0%—and drive territorial advantage at 53.0% Corsis to the Stars' 47.0%. These aren't blowout edges, but they're measurable. The advantage is real enough to matter, but too small to lock in the outcome alone.

Both teams are running hot, though. Tampa Bay's PDO sits at 1.019, Dallas at 1.024. When luck is this visible in the standings, some regression is coming. The Stars' margin is tighter, which means they have more room to fall.

A. Vasilevskiy on a back-to-back is the only goaltending variable worth monitoring—watch for either a backup start or a tired starter.

The player edges are marginal but real. Brandon Hagel drives 1.10 expected goals per 60 for Tampa Bay (23 goals, 26 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 15.8% shooting); Anthony Cirelli sits at 0.95 xG/60 with 15 goals, 18 assists, and a hot 17.0% shooting clip. For Dallas, Jason Robertson hits 0.96 xG/60 (25 goals, 21 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 12.4% shooting) and Michael Bunting adds 0.83 xG/60 (8 goals, 14 assists, 7.6% shooting).

Dallas' luck premium over Tampa Bay is the only variable keeping this close despite inferior underlying play. The Lightning have the edge, but not by much. A single bounce either way determines the outcome. That's a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 51%

51%

TBL

Model favorite

51%

49%

TBL50DAL

TBL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.5–2.4 DAL; 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 →DAL

54.0%51.0%

53.0%47.0%

2.672.36

2.282.29

2.382.07

1.851.68

1.0191.024

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TBL

9-0-1

+21 GD · 1d rest

DAL

2-5-3

-8 GD · 2d rest

1.019

TBL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.024

DAL 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 Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
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.
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 (9-0-1 in their last 10).
The Stars are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — 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.905 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.

DAL

Expected in goal

J. Oettinger

2 days rest.926 last start

Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page