Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Tue, Jan 20 · the slate
Breakdown · SJS at TBL

Lightning run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Jan 20
SJSSan Jose Sharks1TBLTampa Bay Lightning4
The verdict · earned

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

SJS 1 · TBL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:43 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 beat the Sharks 4-1, but the scoreline understates their control. They held 46% of shot attempts yet generated 76% of expected goals—an efficiency gap that tells the real story.

Tampa Bay's edge came from sharpness, not volume. They created 7 high-danger chances to San Jose's 2, and shot at 0.064 expected goals per attempt to the Sharks' 0.030. Y. Askarov kept it respectable with 16 saves on 19 shots, outperforming expectation by 1.16, but the barrage of quality chances overwhelmed him. A. Vasilevskiy finished with 22 saves on 23.

The Lightning exploited space on the rush, scoring 3 times on 30 attempts. B. Hagel paced the attack with 2 goals and an assist in 18:50, N. Kucherov supplied three assists in 18:00, and J. Guentzel added a goal and assist in 15:55.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 20
SJS
1
TBL
4

Lightning run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.3 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
1.31
TBL
4.16
24% of the chances76%

The board read SJS 1, TBL 4. The chances read SJS 1.3, TBL 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−0.2
goals above expected
TBL4.16 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS1.31 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
  1. P1 14:37SJST. Toffoli1–0
  2. P1 15:10TBLB. Hagel1–1
  3. P2 01:49TBLA. Cirelli1–2
  4. P2 03:17TBLJ. Guentzel1–3
  5. P3 17:41TBLB. HagelEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
27 shots
1
Final
71 shots
TBL
44 shots
4
SJS attackTBL attack
SJS TBL Goal
27
shots · 1 in
44
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSTBL
1 / 2
0.53 xG
High danger
2 / 7
2.21 xG
0 / 4
0.36 xG
Medium
2 / 10
1.17 xG
0 / 38
0.42 xG
Low
0 / 48
0.78 xG

The Lightning buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
Y. Askarov
+1.2
SJS · 16/19
B
A. Vasilevskiy
+0.3
TBL · 22/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Sharks 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 9–6
  1. 14:37SJST. Toffoli(W. Eklund, A. Wennberg)1–0
  2. 15:10TBLB. Hagel(A. Cirelli, N. Kucherov)1–1
2ndshots 5–7
  1. 01:49TBLA. Cirelli(B. Hagel, N. Kucherov)1–2
  2. 03:17TBLJ. Guentzel(D. James, G. Goncalves)1–3
3rdshots 9–7
  1. 17:41TBLB. Hagelempty net(J. Guentzel, N. Kucherov)1–4

score reads SJS–TBL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.16
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.039
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
59.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.31Expected goals4.16
TBL 76% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal20
2High-danger chances7
44All attempts (Corsi)65
Adjusted for score: SJS 45% · TBL 55%
Faceoffs · TBL won52%off54%neu21%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS1 / 2 · 0.53 xG
TBL2 / 7 · 2.21 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS0 / 4 · 0.36 xG
TBL2 / 10 · 1.17 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS0 / 38 · 0.42 xG
TBL0 / 48 · 0.78 xG

TBL went 2-for-10 from medium danger on 1.17 expected goals — 0.8 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
1 G · 1.31 xG · -0.3
TBL
4 G · 4.16 xG · -0.2
012345

SJS finished -0.3 against expected, TBL -0.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SJS
WRIST0/19
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/0
DEFLECTED1/1
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/17
TBL
WRIST2/28
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/4
TIP IN1/4
DEFLECTED0/0
BACKHAND0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE1/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/21
SJS
TBL
Off the rush
0 G on 10
0.73 xG
3 G on 30
3.41 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.02 xG
1 G on 2
0.43 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 0-for-19, TBL 2-for-28. TBL scored 3 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
Y. Askarov
SJS · 16/19 · .842
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/72.2+0.2
Medium2/101.2-0.8
Low0/480.8+0.8

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. Vasilevskiy
TBL · 22/23 · .957
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.5
Medium0/40.4+0.4
Low0/380.4+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

71 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SJS
27 shots
1
Final
71 shots
TBL
44 shots
4
SJS attackTBL attack
SJS TBL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS left, TBL 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
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 18:50 on ice · +3
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 18:00 on ice · +2
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:55 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 20
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:49 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 favors Tampa Bay at 58% win probability, projecting a 2.3–2.8 final for the Lightning. This is a lean grounded in underlying play, though regression math complicates the edge.

The Lightning are 9-0-1 in their last ten games. San Jose is running colder—this matchup pits recency against stagnation at even strength.

Tampa's territorial advantage is decisive. The Lightning generate 54.0% expected goals against San Jose's 48.0%, a 6-point gap that compounds over a full game. The shot volume backs it: Tampa drives 53.0% Corsi, winning puck battles consistently and spending more time in San Jose's end.

The caveat is PDO. Tampa sits at 1.019, meaning their goal conversion and prevention rates are both running above the long-term mean—an unsustainable position. San Jose checks in at 0.998, closer to equilibrium. When Tampa's hot hand cools, this gap inverts.

Monitor the crease. A. Nedeljkovic faces a back-to-back; watch for either a backup start or a starter running on fumes.

For San Jose, Pavol Regenda (1.10 xG/60, 5G, 1A, 16.1% shooting) is marked likely inactive. That leaves Igor Chernyshov to shoulder the load: 0.91 xG/60 with 6G and 8A, shooting at 15.0%—elite rates for a forward group depleted up front. He's also flagged as San Jose's defensive weak link, compounding his workload.

Tampa's forward depth is sharper. Brandon Hagel (1.10 xG/60, 23G, 26A, 15.8% shooting) and Anthony Cirelli (0.95 xG/60, 15G, 18A, 17.0% shooting) sustain efficient offensive rates with larger goal totals. Victor Hedman represents Tampa's defensive vulnerability.

Better form, better territory, better depth. PDO regression is a real hedge, but not enough to flip the model. Take the Lightning.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 58%
58%
TBL
Model favorite
42%
58%
SJS50TBL

TBL by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score SJS 2.3–2.8 TBL; 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
SJS← edge
edge →TBL
48.0%54.0%
47.0%53.0%
2.332.67
2.562.28
1.992.38
2.321.85
0.9981.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.019) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SJS
7-3-0
+0 GD · 1d rest
TBL
9-0-1
+22 GD · 2d rest
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.019
TBL 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 48.0%.
  • 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 48.0%.
  • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • A. Nedeljkovic 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 Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
SJS
Expected in goal
A. Nedeljkovic
back-to-back.972 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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.

TBL
Expected in goal
A. Vasilevskiy
2 days rest.950 last start
Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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
SJS
Pavol Regenda5G 1A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page