Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Wed, Feb 25 · the slate
Breakdown · TOR at TBL

Lightning run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalWed, Feb 25
TORToronto Maple Leafs2TBLTampa Bay Lightning4
The verdict · earned

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

TOR 2 · TBL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:26 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 on the underlying numbers but only won 4-2—a margin that understates their dominance. Tampa commanded 62% of expected goals (6.91–4.26), yet both teams underperformed their xG, with the Lightning leaving 2.91 goals on the table and Toronto leaving 2.26. A. Stolarz's heroic performance—saving 2.91 above expected and stopping 93% of the 14 high-danger shots against him—kept the Leafs competitive despite being overwhelmed.

The Lightning's control was thorough. They held 51% of shot attempts (36–34) and generated 14 high-danger chances to Toronto's 6. The Leafs could not convert; they went 0-for-6 on their premium opportunities, a drought that would have been catastrophic without Stolarz's intervention. The Lightning scored four times off the rush.

A. Vasilevskiy (32/34 saves, 0.941 SV%, +2.26 above expected) was equally sharp, handling rebound situations with composure and giving Tampa's forwards repeated chances to find twine. Matthew Knies's snap shot from the wing (P3, 17:13) provided a momentary disruption before the Lightning regained control.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 25
TOR
2
TBL
4

Lightning run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.3 – 6.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
4.26
TBL
6.91
38% of the chances62%

The board read TOR 2, TBL 4. The chances read TOR 4.3, TBL 6.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−2.9
goals above expected
TBL6.91 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR4.26 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Maple Leafs left 2.3 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. P2 07:07TBLB. Point0–1
  2. P2 07:58TBLG. Goncalves0–2
  3. P3 02:59TBLN. Kucherov0–3
  4. P3 16:19TORJ. TavaresPP1–3
  5. P3 16:30TBLB. Point1–4
  6. P3 17:13TORM. KniesPP2–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
48 shots
2
Final
107 shots
TBL
59 shots
4
TOR attackTBL attack
TOR TBL Goal
48
shots · 2 in
59
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORTBL
0 / 6
1.28 xG
High danger
1 / 14
3.96 xG
1 / 18
2.18 xG
Medium
2 / 23
2.43 xG
1 / 35
0.80 xG
Low
1 / 39
0.53 xG

The Maple Leafs went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Stolarz
+2.9
TOR · 32/36
A
A. Vasilevskiy
+2.3
TBL · 32/34
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Maple Leafs 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 8–4no goals
    2ndshots 14–20
    1. 07:07TBLB. Point(C. D'Astous, P. Holmberg)0–1
    2. 07:58TBLG. Goncalves(N. Kucherov, C. D'Astous)0–2
    3rdshots 12–12
    1. 02:59TBLN. Kucherov(G. Goncalves, B. Point)0–3
    2. 16:19TORJ. Tavarespower play(W. Nylander, M. Knies)1–3
    3. 16:30TBLB. Point(N. Kucherov, G. Goncalves)1–4
    4. 17:13TORM. Kniespower play(W. Nylander, A. Matthews)2–4

    score reads TOR–TBL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    6.91
    TBL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.9
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.019
    TBL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    56.3%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.26Expected goals6.91
    TBL 62% of the chance quality
    34Shots on goal36
    6High-danger chances14
    59All attempts (Corsi)76
    Adjusted for score: TOR 49% · TBL 51%
    Faceoffs · TBL won41%off56%neu42%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TOR0 / 6 · 1.28 xG
    TBL1 / 14 · 3.96 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TOR1 / 18 · 2.18 xG
    TBL2 / 23 · 2.43 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TOR1 / 35 · 0.80 xG
    TBL1 / 39 · 0.53 xG

    TBL went 1-for-14 from high danger on 3.96 expected goals — 3.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TOR
    2 G · 4.26 xG · -2.3
    TBL
    4 G · 6.91 xG · -2.9
    012345678

    TOR finished -2.3 against expected, TBL -2.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TOR
    SNAP1/31
    WRIST1/1
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND0/5
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/11
    TBL
    SNAP0/18
    WRIST3/19
    SLAP1/14
    TIP IN0/5
    BACKHAND0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/17
    TOR
    TBL
    Off the rush
    1 G on 31
    2.58 xG
    4 G on 45
    5.70 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 9
    1.15 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.68 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: TOR went 1-for-31, TBL 0-for-18. TBL scored 4 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
    A. Stolarz
    TOR · 32/36 · .889
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/144.0+3.0
    Medium2/232.4+0.4
    Low1/390.5-0.5

    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 · 32/34 · .941
    +2.3
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.3+1.3
    Medium1/182.2+1.2
    Low1/350.8-0.2

    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

    107 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TOR
    48 shots
    2
    Final
    107 shots
    TBL
    59 shots
    4
    TOR attackTBL attack
    TOR TBL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR 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 · 2 A · 2 SOG · 23:57 on ice · +3
    B. Point
    #21 · C · TBL
    2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 22:16 on ice · +4
    G. Goncalves
    #93 · C · TBL
    1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 11:51 on ice · +4
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Feb 25
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:28 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 TOR 2.3 - 2.8 TBL game with the Lightning at 59% win probability.

    The recency narrative runs the opposite direction. The Lightning are 8-1-1 in their last 10, while the Maple Leafs have cratered at -9 goal differential over the same stretch. Form can fool you, though. The model's lean toward Tampa Bay rests on deeper structural advantages.

    At 5v5, the Lightning hold 54.0% expected goals to Toronto's 46.0%, and 53.0% Corsi to Toronto's 45.0%. That is not marginal. It is territorial dominance—the Lightning generate more quality chances and control the puck in Toronto's end. The Maple Leafs, despite their star power, have been reactive.

    The catch: the Lightning's PDO sits at 1.019, running hot. That kind of efficiency cannot hold. Regression is coming, and how much it impacts this specific matchup shapes the model's confidence level.

    On rest, the Lightning carry 19 days to Toronto's 21. A two-day gap is marginal, but it moves probability slightly.

    For Toronto, Auston Matthews remains the first problem. He is at 1.10 xG/60 with 17 goals and 13 assists—clinical efficiency at 10.6% shooting. John Tavares sits at 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals and 24 assists, having converted 3 high-danger chances into goals. The Maple Leafs' issue is not generation; it is possession.

    Tampa Bay counters with Brandon Hagel at 1.10 xG/60 and 23 goals alongside 26 assists. That output—15.8% shooting—hints at finishing prowess. Anthony Cirelli operates deeper, at 0.95 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists, but his 17.0% shooting rate is notable for a forward of his role.

    The model sees a tilt that favors who controls the game. That is Tampa Bay. The Lightning's PDO regression risk is real, but it does not erase the possession edge. Toronto needs to break the structural pattern—better puck luck, tighter defense—to overtake the projection. Until then, the model's 59% edge holds.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 59%
    59%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    41%
    59%
    TOR50TBL

    TBL by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score TOR 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
    TOR← edge
    edge →TBL
    46.0%54.0%
    45.0%53.0%
    2.242.67
    2.672.28
    2.092.38
    2.521.85
    1.0021.019

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 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
    TOR
    4-5-1
    -9 GD · 21d rest
    TBL
    8-1-1
    +15 GD · 19d rest
    1.002
    TOR 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 46.0%.
    • 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 46.0%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Lightning are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).
    • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Maple Leafs have 2 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    TOR
    Expected in goal
    A. Stolarz
    21 days rest.944 last start
    Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    TBL
    Expected in goal
    A. Vasilevskiy
    19 days rest.971 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
    TOR
    Auston Matthews17G 13A
    1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.6% sh
    John Tavares15G 24A
    0.91 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.4% 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