Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
← Sat, Jan 24 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at CBJ

Blue Jackets run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Jan 24
TBLTampa Bay Lightning5CBJColumbus Blue Jackets8
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 5 · CBJ 8
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:39 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

Columbus dominated the underlying numbers — 68% of expected goals (4.79–2.29) — yet the scoreline read 8–5. Tampa's five goals on 2.29 xG represented the evening's starkest disconnect between play and result.

The Blue Jackets controlled 51% of shot attempts (31–30 on goal) and generated far superior scoring chances. They finished 6–1 on high-danger opportunities while maintaining 0.094 xG per shot versus Tampa's 0.035. That quality gap materialized through execution: Columbus converted 4 of 6 high-danger chances (67%) and was lethal on the rush, scoring 6 goals on 27 attempts.

Tampa's power play proved decisive. The Lightning converted 2 of 12 attempts with 0.58 expected goals, enough to offset Columbus's play advantage. Both goalies underperformed their models — J. Greaves (0.833 SV%) played 2.71 goals below expected, while J. Johansson (0.793 SV%) finished 1.21 short. Yet Columbus's overall scoring luck (3.21 goals above 4.79 xG) still outpaced Tampa's (2.71 above 2.29).

Columbus added insult by finishing 2 goals from low-danger spots that J. Johansson should have contained. The Blue Jackets' eight-goal haul reflected superior shot selection, dangerous spacing in transition, and relentless execution where Tampa generated only one high-danger chance all night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 24
TBL
5
CBJ
8

Blue Jackets run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.3 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
2.29
CBJ
4.79
32% of the chances68%

The board read TBL 5, CBJ 8. The chances read TBL 2.3, CBJ 4.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
+3.2
goals above expected
CBJ4.79 expected · 8 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL2.29 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blue Jackets scored 3.2 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:47CBJC. Sillinger0–1
  2. P1 07:48TBLJ. Guentzel1–1
  3. P1 08:37CBJM. Marchment1–2
  4. P1 10:01TBLD. RaddyshPP2–2
  5. P1 18:33CBJA. Fantilli2–3
  6. P1 19:47CBJD. Voronkov2–4
  7. P2 03:29TBLN. Kucherov3–4
+6 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
47 shots
5
Final
89 shots
CBJ
42 shots
8
TBL attackCBJ attack
TBL CBJ Goal
47
shots · 5 in
42
shots · 8 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLCBJ
1 / 1
0.19 xG
High danger
4 / 6
2.67 xG
3 / 14
1.46 xG
Medium
2 / 16
1.66 xG
1 / 50
0.64 xG
Low
2 / 29
0.46 xG

The Blue Jackets buried 4 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D-
J. Johansson
−1.2
TBL · 23/29
F
J. Greaves
−2.7
CBJ · 25/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets run the Lightning 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 8–11
  1. 05:47CBJC. Sillinger(C. Coyle)0–1
  2. 07:48TBLJ. Guentzel1–1
  3. 08:37CBJM. Marchment(E. Gudbranson)1–2
  4. 10:01TBLD. Raddyshpower play(N. Kucherov, J. Guentzel)2–2
  5. 18:33CBJA. Fantilli(K. Marchenko, M. Marchment)2–3
  6. 19:47CBJD. Voronkov2–4
2ndshots 10–16
  1. 03:29TBLN. Kucherov(B. Hagel, A. Cirelli)3–4
  2. 04:58TBLA. Cirelli(N. Kucherov, B. Hagel)4–4
  3. 09:05CBJM. Marchment(Z. Werenski, C. Coyle)4–5
  4. 18:57CBJC. Coylepower play(A. Fantilli, Z. Werenski)4–6
3rdshots 12–4
  1. 14:55CBJS. Monahanempty net4–7
  2. 18:54TBLJ. Guentzelpower play(N. Kucherov, A. Cirelli)5–7
  3. 19:35CBJM. Marchmentempty net(A. Fantilli, K. Marchenko)5–8

score reads TBL–CBJ

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.79
CBJ chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.080
CBJ puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.29Expected goals4.79
CBJ 68% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal31
1High-danger chances6
65All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: TBL 61% · CBJ 40%
Faceoffs · CBJ won29%off38%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL1 / 1 · 0.19 xG
CBJ4 / 6 · 2.67 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL3 / 14 · 1.46 xG
CBJ2 / 16 · 1.66 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 50 · 0.64 xG
CBJ2 / 29 · 0.46 xG

TBL went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.46 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
5 G · 2.29 xG · +2.7
CBJ
8 G · 4.79 xG · +3.2
0123456789

TBL finished +2.7 against expected, CBJ +3.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
WRIST2/18
SNAP1/9
SLAP1/11
BACKHAND1/5
TIP IN0/3
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/18
CBJ
WRIST7/23
SNAP1/8
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/4
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/9
TBL
CBJ
Off the rush
4 G on 23
1.43 xG
6 G on 27
2.83 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.29 xG
0 G on 1
0.11 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-18, CBJ 7-for-23. CBJ scored 6 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
J. Johansson
TBL · 23/29 · .793
-1.2
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/62.7-1.3
Medium2/161.7-0.3
Low2/290.5-1.5

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

J. Greaves
CBJ · 25/30 · .833
-2.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/10.2-0.8
Medium3/141.5-1.5
Low1/500.6-0.4

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
47 shots
5
Final
89 shots
CBJ
42 shots
8
TBL attackCBJ attack
TBL CBJ Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, CBJ 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 · 3 A · 3 SOG · 22:43 on ice · +1
M. Marchment
#17 · L · CBJ
3 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:23 on ice · +2
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:03 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 24
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:24 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 models can't break the tie. The model projects a TBL 2.5–2.6 CBJ finish with the Blue Jackets at exactly 50% win probability—the closest thing to a pick'em in modern projection.

Tampa Bay's run has been sharp: 9-0-1 over their last ten games tilts the momentum chart decisively. Columbus, meanwhile, sits at -5 in goal differential over the same stretch, a sign their offense has stalled while leaking chances. That gap widens in the raw numbers. The Lightning hold 54.0% expected goals and 53.0% Corsi at 5-on-5; the Blue Jackets sit at 52.0% and 51.0%, respectively—margins that compound over a full season but feel thin enough to flip on any given night.

One warning: Tampa's PDO of 1.019 signals they're running hot. Those unsustainable bounces regress downward eventually, and tonight could be the start. Columbus's 1.003 sits closer to true talent.

Columbus arrives on just one day of rest; Tampa had three. The Lightning can exploit that edge early if they dictate pace.

The goaltending situation matters. J. Greaves is on the tail end of a back-to-back, which means either a backup appears or a tired starter takes the net—both scenarios tilt the ice toward Tampa.

Brandon Hagel and Anthony Cirelli are Tampa's engines. Hagel has been ruthless: 23 goals with a 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes, posting 2 high-danger goals on a 15.8% shooting clip. Cirelli's 0.95 xG/60 sustained 15 goals and 18 assists, with five high-danger conversions at an elite 17.0% rate. Stopping them is the prerequisite to any Columbus upset.

Boone Jenner carries Columbus's chances. His 0.98 xG/60 and 11 goals represent steady production; he's added 21 assists, though only 2 of his goals qualify as high-danger. Mathieu Olivier (0.89 xG/60, 12 goals, 13.3% shooting) gives Columbus a secondary threat, though his limited assists (9) suggest depth struggles.

Defensively, Victor Hedman's minutes make him Tampa's weak link; Conor Garland carries Columbus's liability on the back end.

In a matchup this close, the team that dictates pace and converts medium-danger chances wins. Expect efficiency, not entertainment.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 50%
50%
CBJ
Model favorite
50%
50%
TBL50CBJ

CBJ by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.5–2.6 CBJ; 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 →CBJ
54.0%52.0%
53.0%51.0%
2.672.63
2.282.43
2.382.12
1.851.98
1.0191.003

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.003) 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 · 3d rest
CBJ
5-4-1
-5 GD · 1d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • J. Greaves 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 Blue Jackets are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Lightning have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TBL
Expected in goal
A. Vasilevskiy
3 days rest.957 last start
Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CBJ
Expected in goal
J. Greaves
back-to-back1.000 last start
Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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.

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
CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page