Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Fri, Jan 23 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at CHI

Lightning run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTFri, Jan 23
TBLTampa Bay Lightning2CHIChicago Blackhawks1
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 2 · CHI 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:18 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 controlled the game decisively but wasted enough chances to need a shootout, winning 2–1. They dominated 64–36 in expected goals, outshot Chicago 31–19, and had a 6–2 edge in high-danger chances—yet went 0 for 6 on those prime looks and underperformed their xG by 2.44.

Chicago underperformed by 1.56 but remained competitive because A. Soderblom was exceptional. He stopped all 6 high-danger chances for a 0.968 SV%, a +3.44 overperformance versus expected. A. Vasilevskiy mirrored that, stopping 18 of 19 (0.947 SV%, +1.56). When two goalies dominate like that, the game gets decided elsewhere: Dominic James's shootout winner ended it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Jan 23
TBL
2
CHI
1

Lightning run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.4 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
4.44
CHI
2.56
64% of the chances37%

The board read TBL 2, CHI 1. The chances read TBL 4.4, CHI 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−2.4
goals above expected
TBL4.44 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.56 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blackhawks left 1.6 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 17:42CHIR. Greene0–1
  2. P2 18:42TBLN. Kucherov1–1
  3. SO 00:00TBLN. KucherovPP1–1
  4. SO 00:00CHIF. NazarPP1–1
  5. SO 00:00CHIL. CrevierPP1–1
  6. SO 00:00TBLG. GoncalvesPP1–1
  7. SO 00:00TBLD. JamesPP1–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
62 shots
4
Final
96 shots
CHI
34 shots
3
TBL attackCHI attack
TBL CHI Goal

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

62
shots · 4 in
34
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLCHI
0 / 6
1.40 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.43 xG
1 / 21
2.11 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.82 xG
0 / 45
0.93 xG
Low
0 / 23
0.30 xG

High-danger looks: TBL 0 of 6, CHI 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Soderblom
+3.4
CHI · 30/31
A
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.6
TBL · 18/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Blackhawks 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 8–4
  1. 17:42CHIR. Greene(N. Lardis, O. Moore)0–1
2ndshots 13–2
  1. 18:42TBLN. Kucherov(B. Hagel, A. Cirelli)1–1
3rdshots 9–8no goals
    OTshots 1–5no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00TBLN. Kucherovpower play1–1
      2. 00:00CHIF. Nazarpower play1–1
      3. 00:00CHIL. Crevierpower play1–1
      4. 00:00TBLG. Goncalvespower play1–1
      5. 00:00TBLD. Jamespower play1–1

      score reads TBL–CHI

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      4.44
      TBL chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −2.4
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      0.989
      TBL puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      64.3%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      4.44Expected goals2.56
      TBL 64% of the chance quality
      31Shots on goal19
      6High-danger chances2
      72All attempts (Corsi)40
      Adjusted for score: TBL 65% · CHI 35%
      Faceoffs · CHI won25%off64%neu64%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      TBL0 / 6 · 1.40 xG
      CHI0 / 2 · 0.43 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      TBL1 / 21 · 2.11 xG
      CHI1 / 15 · 1.82 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      TBL0 / 45 · 0.93 xG
      CHI0 / 23 · 0.30 xG

      TBL went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.40 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      TBL
      2 G · 4.44 xG · -2.4
      CHI
      1 G · 2.56 xG · -1.6
      012345

      TBL finished -2.4 against expected, CHI -1.6.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      TBL
      WRIST0/30
      SLAP0/10
      TIP IN0/7
      BACKHAND1/7
      DEFLECTED0/3
      SNAP0/0
      OTHER0/15
      CHI
      WRIST1/18
      SLAP0/4
      TIP IN0/4
      BACKHAND0/0
      DEFLECTED0/1
      SNAP0/2
      OTHER0/11
      TBL
      CHI
      Off the rush
      1 G on 35
      2.72 xG
      1 G on 17
      2.01 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 6
      0.91 xG
      0 G on 3
      0.25 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 0-for-30, CHI 1-for-18.

      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 · 18/19 · .947
      +1.6
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/20.4+0.4
      Medium1/151.8+0.8
      Low0/230.3+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

      A. Soderblom
      CHI · 30/31 · .968
      +3.4
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/61.4+1.4
      Medium1/212.1+1.1
      Low0/450.9+0.9

      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

      96 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      TBL
      62 shots
      4
      Final
      96 shots
      CHI
      34 shots
      3
      TBL attackCHI attack
      TBL CHI 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, CHI 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
      N. Kucherov
      #86 · R · TBL
      1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 23:48 on ice · +1
      B. Hagel
      #38 · L · TBL
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:45 on ice
      A. Cirelli
      #71 · C · TBL
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:21 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Fri, Jan 23
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:07 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 2.8–2.3 Lightning victory with Tampa Bay at 58% win probability—a lean outcome, but the underlying metrics support it. Tampa Bay dominates at 5v5: 54.0% expected goals against Chicago's 42.0%, paired with a 53.0% Corsi edge that translates to sustained territorial control. The Blackhawks will defend for most of this game.

      The catch is PDO. Tampa Bay is running at 1.019—above the sustainable mean—while Chicago sits at 0.996, suggesting a team where results have lagged execution. Some regression is inevitable, which explains why the model keeps the spread tight despite the underlying advantages.

      Tampa Bay arrives hot: 9-0-1 in their last 10. That run is built on Brandon Hagel (23 goals, 1.10 xG/60, 15.8% shooting) and Anthony Cirelli (15 goals, 0.95 xG/60, 17.0% shooting). Both are finishing above expected rates—Cirelli especially, at elite levels. Cirelli's high shooting percentage (17.0%) signals that close chances are converting.

      Chicago's answer is Tyler Bertuzzi (20 goals, 0.85 xG/60, 7 high-danger goals) and Connor Bedard (17 goals, 0.82 xG/60, 27 assists, 11.8% shooting). Bedard's assist total is notable—he's functioning as a playmaker, not just a finisher. Bertuzzi's high-danger production (7 goals) suggests he's reliable in close.

      Victor Hedman is the defensive weak link for Tampa Bay; Anton Frondell for Chicago. The model sees Tampa Bay's ability to maintain pressure as decisive. Chicago's only realistic path is discipline and conversion on limited opportunities—difficult when the underlying play favors their opponent and the model knows it.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      TBL 58%
      58%
      TBL
      Model favorite
      58%
      42%
      TBL50CHI

      TBL by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score TBL 2.8–2.3 CHI; 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 →CHI
      54.0%42.0%
      53.0%46.0%
      2.672.17
      2.282.94
      2.381.84
      1.852.41
      1.0190.996

      TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.996) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      TBL
      9-0-1
      +24 GD · 2d rest
      CHI
      6-4-0
      +0 GD · 3d rest
      1.019
      TBL PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.996
      CHI 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 42.0%.
      • 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 42.0%.
      • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • 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
      TBL
      Expected in goal
      A. Vasilevskiy
      2 days rest.957 last start
      Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      CHI
      Expected in goal
      S. Knight
      3 days rest1.000 last start
      Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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
      CHI
      Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
      0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
      Connor Bedard17G 27A
      0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page