Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · WPG at TBL

Lightning pull away from the Jets

FinalThu, Jan 29

WPGWinnipeg Jets1 TBLTampa Bay Lightning4

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 1 · TBL 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:05 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's 4-1 victory over the Jets was no statistical anomaly. Tampa controlled 59% of expected goals (3.76–2.65) and 61% of shot attempts (37–24), the kind of advantage that produces blowouts.

The Jets created opportunities—five high-danger chances to Tampa's two—but failed to capitalize. Winnipeg underperformed its expected goals by 1.65, the gap between generating quality chances and burying them.

Andrei Vasilevskiy closed that gap on the other end: 23/24 saves (0.958 SV%), or 1.65 goals better than expected. Meanwhile, Tampa's rush attack thrived with 3 goals on 30 chances. Nikita Kucherov's wrist shot from the high slot at 18:52 of the third period turned dominance into distance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 29

WPG

TBL

Lightning pull away from the Jets

Chances 2.6 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

WPG

2.65

TBL

3.76

41% of the chances59%

The board read WPG 1, TBL 4. The chances read WPG 2.6, TBL 3.8.

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

Luck check

TBL

+0.2

goals above expected

TBL3.76 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG2.65 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Jets 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

P1 14:58TBLD. James0–1
P2 01:37TBLD. Raddysh0–2
P2 12:25WPGK. Connor1–2
P2 15:17TBLY. GourdePP1–3
P3 18:52TBLN. KucherovEN1–4

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

Where the shots came from

WPG

37 shots

Final

85 shots

TBL

48 shots

WPG TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WPGTBL

0 / 2

0.68 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.63 xG

0 / 14

1.47 xG

Medium

2 / 14

1.32 xG

1 / 30

0.49 xG

Low

1 / 42

0.81 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 0 of 2, TBL 1 of 5.

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

In the net

A. Vasilevskiy

+1.6

TBL · 23/24

B+

C. Hellebuyck

+0.8

WPG · 33/36

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning pull away from the Jets

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 12–10

14:58TBLD. James(D. Raddysh, J. Moser)0–1

2ndshots 8–11

01:37TBLD. Raddysh(Y. Gourde, Z. Girgensons)0–2
12:25WPGK. Connor(D. Samberg, M. Scheifele)1–2
15:17TBLY. Gourdepower play(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)1–3

3rdshots 4–16

18:52TBLN. Kucherovempty net(Y. Gourde, Z. Girgensons)1–4

score reads WPG–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.76

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.044

TBL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

57.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.65Expected goals3.76

TBL 59% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal37

2High-danger chances5

46All attempts (Corsi)61

Adjusted for score: WPG 49% · TBL 52%

Faceoffs · TBL won52%off60%neu44%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG0 / 2 · 0.68 xG

TBL1 / 5 · 1.63 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG0 / 14 · 1.47 xG

TBL2 / 14 · 1.32 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG1 / 30 · 0.49 xG

TBL1 / 42 · 0.81 xG

WPG went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.47 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

1 G · 2.65 xG · -1.6

TBL

4 G · 3.76 xG · +0.2

012345

WPG finished -1.6 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

WPG

SNAP0/23

SLAP0/4

WRIST0/3

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

BAT0/1

OTHER0/9

TBL

SNAP1/19

SLAP1/14

WRIST1/8

TIP IN0/1

BACKHAND0/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

DEFLECTED1/2

BAT0/0

OTHER0/13

WPG

TBL

Off the rush

0 G on 17

1.55 xG

3 G on 30

2.84 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.21 xG

0 G on 2

0.25 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: WPG went 0-for-23, TBL 1-for-19. 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

C. Hellebuyck

WPG · 33/36 · .917

+0.8

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.6+0.6

Medium2/141.3-0.7

Low1/420.8-0.2

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 · 23/24 · .958

+1.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.7+0.7

Medium0/141.5+1.5

Low1/300.5-0.5

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WPG

37 shots

Final

85 shots

TBL

48 shots

WPG TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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

D. Raddysh

#43 · D · TBL

1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 23:43 on ice · +3

Y. Gourde

#37 · C · TBL

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:40 on ice · +2

Z. Girgensons

#28 · C · TBL

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:51 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 29

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:02 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 2.3-2.7 goal margin favoring Tampa Bay, giving the Lightning 57% win probability. The verdict runs on pure underlying play: Tampa controls the game.

The Lightning post 54.0% xG to Winnipeg's 48.0%, with a 53.0% to 49.0% Corsi split confirming territorial command. They generate more dangerous chances and dictate play tempo—the foundation of any favorite.

But the edge carries a qualification. Tampa's 1.019 PDO runs hot; Winnipeg's 0.998 sits near baseline. The model bakes in regression on the Lightning's shooting luck, narrowing the advantage considerably.

Winnipeg's goaltending adds wrinkle. C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back; a backup appearance or tired starter changes the outcome sharply.

For the Jets, the scoring load falls to Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 13.0% shooting) and Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 8.6% shooting). Connor's 25 goals reflect consistent high-volume output. Niederreiter has converted 3 high-danger goals—a sign he scores from prime chances but at lower overall efficiency.

Tampa's threat flows through Brandon Hagel (1.10 xG/60, 23G 26A, 15.8% shooting) and Anthony Cirelli (0.95 xG/60, 15G 18A, 17.0% shooting). Hagel leads in chance creation; his 15.8% conversion rate reflects elite finishing. Cirelli adds depth with 5 high-danger goals among his 15 total—a sign he's both finding great looks and capitalizing on them. His 17.0% shooting may not hold.

Both teams post 0% high-danger and rebound goal rates, likely an artifact of sample tracking rather than actual structure.

Colin Miller anchors Winnipeg's defensive liability. Victor Hedman does the same for Tampa. In a contest this tight, one critical breakdown could swing momentum decisively.

The model's 57% confidence feels appropriately modest. Tampa's underlying advantage is real but not dominant, and regression to the mean will hunt the Lightning's unsustainable PDO. Winnipeg has the territorial disadvantage plus goaltending uncertainty. Tampa should hold, but this reads as a slight favorite, not a sure thing.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 57%

57%

TBL

Model favorite

43%

57%

WPG50TBL

TBL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.3–2.7 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

WPG← edge

edge →TBL

48.0%54.0%

49.0%53.0%

2.342.67

2.552.28

1.902.38

2.101.85

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

WPG

6-2-2

+5 GD · 1d rest

TBL

8-1-1

+17 GD · 2d rest

0.998

WPG 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.
C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

back-to-back.897 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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.

TBL

Expected in goal

A. Vasilevskiy

2 days rest1.000 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

WPG

Nino Niederreiter6G 6A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh

Kyle Connor25G 30A

0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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