Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · BUF at TBL

Lightning run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTTue, Feb 3

BUFBuffalo Sabres3 TBLTampa Bay Lightning4

The verdict · earned

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

BUF 3 · TBL 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:07 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 4-3 overtime result suggested a close game. The underlying numbers said otherwise: Tampa held 63% of 5v5 expected goals (4.57–2.70) and 7-1 in high-danger chances, a dominance that should've produced a blowout, not overtime.

The Lightning controlled shot volume and quality alike. They generated 57% of shot attempts and cashed efficiency: 0.077 xG per shot to Buffalo's 0.055. A. Vasilevskiy made 23 saves on 26 shots (0.885 SV%), while C. Ellis kept the Sabres afloat with 31 saves (0.886 SV%, +0.57 vs expected).

Buffalo scored three times from rush play, mirroring Tampa's total. But two came from low-danger spots—the kind of scoring chance a goalie needs to stop. Tampa showed no such leaks. They scored three times from the rush on 22 chances and converted 2-for-9 on the power play (1.07 xG), demonstrating precision the Sabres never approached.

Jake Guentzel ended it at 4:45 of overtime with a snap shot from the high slot. Kucherov orchestrated the dominance (1G, 3A in 22:24) alongside Guentzel (1G, 1A in 26:07) and D. Raddysh (1G, 1A in 25:48).

The scoreline was deceptive. On nights when teams play to their underlying performance, Tampa's advantage—in both shot volume and shot quality—should've produced more than a one-goal margin.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Feb 3

BUF

TBL

Lightning run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.7 – 4.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

2.70

TBL

4.57

37% of the chances63%

The board read BUF 3, TBL 4. The chances read BUF 2.7, TBL 4.6.

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

Luck check

TBL

−0.6

goals above expected

TBL4.57 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF2.70 expected · 3 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 10:24TBLN. Kucherov0–1
P1 16:53BUFM. Samuelsson1–1
P3 04:08BUFM. Samuelsson2–1
P3 08:53TBLO. BjorkstrandPP2–2
P3 14:53BUFJ. DoanPP3–2
P3 19:34TBLD. RaddyshPP3–3
OT 04:45TBLJ. Guentzel3–4

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

38 shots

Final

87 shots

TBL

49 shots

BUF TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFTBL

0 / 1

0.25 xG

High danger

1 / 7

1.60 xG

1 / 17

1.90 xG

Medium

3 / 21

2.46 xG

2 / 31

0.55 xG

Low

0 / 31

0.50 xG

High-danger looks: BUF 0 of 1, TBL 1 of 7.

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

In the net

C. Ellis

+0.6

BUF · 31/35

A. Vasilevskiy

−0.3

TBL · 23/26

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Sabres 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 9–13

10:24TBLN. Kucherov(J. Guentzel)0–1
16:53BUFM. Samuelsson1–1

2ndshots 4–10no goals

3rdshots 8–11

04:08BUFM. Samuelsson(R. McLeod, J. Quinn)2–1
08:53TBLO. Bjorkstrandpower play(D. Raddysh, N. Kucherov)2–2
14:53BUFJ. Doanpower play(T. Thompson, R. Dahlin)3–2
19:34TBLD. Raddyshpower play(N. Kucherov, B. Hagel)3–3

OTshots 5–1

04:45TBLJ. Guentzel(N. Kucherov, J. Moser)3–4

score reads BUF–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.57

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.6

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.007

TBL puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

54.6%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.70Expected goals4.57

TBL 63% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal35

1High-danger chances7

49All attempts (Corsi)59

Adjusted for score: BUF 45% · TBL 55%

Faceoffs · TBL won47%off53%neu52%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF0 / 1 · 0.25 xG

TBL1 / 7 · 1.60 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF1 / 17 · 1.90 xG

TBL3 / 21 · 2.46 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF2 / 31 · 0.55 xG

TBL0 / 31 · 0.50 xG

BUF went 2-for-31 from low danger on 0.55 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

3 G · 2.70 xG · +0.3

TBL

4 G · 4.57 xG · -0.6

012345

BUF finished +0.3 against expected, TBL -0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BUF

SNAP0/27

WRIST2/2

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/3

DEFLECTED1/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/11

TBL

SNAP2/4

WRIST1/26

SLAP1/8

BACKHAND0/8

TIP IN0/1

DEFLECTED0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/10

BUF

TBL

Off the rush

3 G on 26

2.33 xG

3 G on 22

2.46 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

1 G on 11

1.59 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BUF went 0-for-27, TBL 2-for-4. BUF 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. Ellis

BUF · 31/35 · .886

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.6+0.6

Medium3/212.5-0.5

Low0/310.5+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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 23/26 · .885

-0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.3+0.3

Medium1/171.9+0.9

Low2/310.6-1.4

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

38 shots

Final

87 shots

TBL

49 shots

BUF TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF 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

N. Kucherov

#86 · R · TBL

1 G · 3 A · 7 SOG · 22:24 on ice · +1

J. Guentzel

#59 · C · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 26:07 on ice · +1

D. Raddysh

#43 · D · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 25:48 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Feb 3

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:53 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 2.4-2.7 win for Tampa Bay, with the Lightning favored at 56%.

Tampa Bay controls the underlying play on both offensive and defensive efficiency. At 54.0% expected goals versus Buffalo's 50.0%, the Lightning generate better chances at even strength. The Corsi split—53.0% for Tampa, 49.0% for Buffalo—reveals territorial dominance; expect the Lightning to spend most of the game in Buffalo's zone.

Both teams, however, are running unsustainably hot. Buffalo's PDO sits at 1.020, Tampa's at 1.019. PDO measures team puck luck—the combination of on-ice save percentage and shooting percentage—and both figures signal regression ahead. The Sabres may feel this correction more acutely; they're more dependent on conversion rates than the underlying metrics suggest they should be.

On Buffalo's side, Jason Zucker is the offensive anchor at 1.07 xG per 60 minutes. His 14 goals come with a 15.1% shooting percentage, and six of those scores are high-danger chances—a clip that defies sustainability. Josh Doan (1.01 xG/60, 11.5% shooting) offers secondary production, though his own conversion also signals short-term luck.

Tampa counters with Brandon Hagel, whose 1.10 xG/60 and 23 goals represent the most dominant even-strength presence in this matchup. Unlike Zucker, Hagel's underlying metrics and raw output align; his production isn't luck-dependent. Anthony Cirelli (0.95 xG/60, 15 goals) rounds out the scoring with his own 17.0% shooting clip, another sign of positive variance headed toward normalcy.

The model's tilt is structural, not speculative. Better process prevails over better luck. Once PDO regresses—and it will—Buffalo's already-narrow underlying edge disappears entirely.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 56%

56%

TBL

Model favorite

44%

56%

BUF50TBL

TBL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.4–2.7 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

BUF← edge

edge →TBL

50.0%54.0%

49.0%53.0%

2.552.67

2.552.28

2.352.38

1.901.85

1.0201.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.019) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BUF

7-2-1

+16 GD · 2d rest

TBL

8-1-1

+14 GD · 2d rest

1.020

BUF 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 50.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 50.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

BUF

Expected in goal

A. Lyon

2 days rest.900 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL

Expected in goal

A. Vasilevskiy

2 days rest.853 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

BUF

Jason Zucker14G 14A

1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh

Josh Doan15G 18A

1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% 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