Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater
← Tue, Mar 3 · the slate
Breakdown · FLA at NJD

Devils run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Mar 3
FLAFlorida Panthers1NJDNew Jersey Devils5
The verdict · earned

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

FLA 1 · NJD 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:18 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 Panthers underperformed their 2.50 expected goals by 1.50 in a 5-1 loss to New Jersey. They generated higher-quality chances than their 21 shots suggest, but failed to convert, while New Jersey controlled play decisively: 69% of expected goals and 7-2 in high-danger chances. The difference in shot quality was stark—the Devils created looks at 0.102 xG per shot versus Florida's 0.058.

Execution was the story. New Jersey scored 3 times on 27 rush chances while Florida couldn't capitalize on opportunities. Goaltending quality went both ways. S. Bobrovsky saved 2.62 shots above expected and J. Markstrom saved 1.50 above expected, but Florida's inefficiency outweighed any edge.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 3
FLA
1
NJD
5

Devils run the Panthers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.5 – 5.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Devils earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
2.50
NJD
5.62
31% of the chances69%

The board read FLA 1, NJD 5. The chances read FLA 2.5, NJD 5.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NJD
−0.6
goals above expected
NJD5.62 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA2.50 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 1.5 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 12:10NJDA. Gritsyuk0–1
  2. P1 14:37FLAA. Lundell1–1
  3. P2 01:35NJDD. Hamilton1–2
  4. P2 08:13NJDC. Glass1–3
  5. P3 16:23NJDD. MercerEN1–4
  6. P3 19:20NJDS. NemecEN1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
32 shots
1
Final
78 shots
NJD
46 shots
5
FLA attackNJD attack
FLA NJD Goal
32
shots · 1 in
46
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLANJD
0 / 2
0.43 xG
High danger
2 / 7
3.40 xG
1 / 13
1.70 xG
Medium
2 / 15
1.51 xG
0 / 28
0.37 xG
Low
1 / 33
0.71 xG

The Devils buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Bobrovsky
+2.6
FLA · 28/31
A
J. Markstrom
+1.5
NJD · 20/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Devils run the Panthers 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 12–10
  1. 12:10NJDA. Gritsyuk(C. Brown)0–1
  2. 14:37FLAA. Lundell(E. Rodrigues, U. Balinskis)1–1
2ndshots 7–11
  1. 01:35NJDD. Hamilton(J. Hughes, J. Bratt)1–2
  2. 08:13NJDC. Glass(L. Hameenaho, D. Hamilton)1–3
3rdshots 2–12
  1. 16:23NJDD. Mercerempty net1–4
  2. 19:20NJDS. Nemecempty net(C. Brown, J. Hughes)1–5

score reads FLA–NJD

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.62
NJD chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.6
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.068
NJD puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
56.1%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.50Expected goals5.62
NJD 69% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal33
2High-danger chances7
43All attempts (Corsi)55
Adjusted for score: FLA 49% · NJD 51%
Faceoffs · NJD won71%off77%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA0 / 2 · 0.43 xG
NJD2 / 7 · 3.40 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA1 / 13 · 1.70 xG
NJD2 / 15 · 1.51 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA0 / 28 · 0.37 xG
NJD1 / 33 · 0.71 xG

NJD went 2-for-7 from high danger on 3.40 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
1 G · 2.50 xG · -1.5
NJD
5 G · 5.62 xG · -0.6
0123456

FLA finished -1.5 against expected, NJD -0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
WRIST0/15
BACKHAND1/6
SNAP0/3
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/2
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/11
NJD
WRIST3/27
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP1/6
TIP IN1/5
SLAP0/5
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
FLA
NJD
Off the rush
0 G on 16
1.21 xG
3 G on 27
3.55 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 5
0.88 xG
1 G on 2
0.07 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-15, NJD 3-for-27. NJD 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
S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 28/31 · .903
+2.6
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/73.4+1.4
Medium2/151.5-0.5
Low1/330.7-0.3

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

J. Markstrom
NJD · 20/21 · .952
+1.5
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium1/131.7+0.7
Low0/280.4+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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
32 shots
1
Final
78 shots
NJD
46 shots
5
FLA attackNJD attack
FLA NJD Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, NJD 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
J. Hughes
#86 · C · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:44 on ice · +3
D. Hamilton
#7 · D · NJD
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:29 on ice · +1
C. Brown
#16 · R · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 17:03 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:16 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 FLA 2.5-2.6 NJD game with the Devils at 52% win probability — as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

New Jersey carries obvious concerns: -11 goal differential over their last 10. But their underlying numbers suggest positive regression. The Devils' 0.971 PDO is running cold, yet they're generating shots at essentially the same rate as Florida — 50.0% xG% for New Jersey, 49.0% for the Panthers. In Corsi%, the gap is negligible: 51.0% to 52.0%. These are two teams producing nearly identical expected output.

Both teams register 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate. Disciplined defensive positioning is suppressing quality chances. Neither club is manufacturing from the blue paint.

Offensive Architecture

Sam Bennett anchors Florida at 0.97 xG/60 with 18 goals and 19 assists, including 6 high-danger looks. His 13.1% shooting rate reveals outperformance. Brad Marchand rounds out Florida's offensive tier, generating 0.93 xG/60 with 17 goals and 9 assists at 19.5% shooting — a rate that appears inflated.

For New Jersey, Timo Meier leads with 1.08 xG/60, highest among these four, but has converted only 13 goals through 15 assists, including just 3 high-danger goals. At 6.7% shooting, he's been snakebitten. Jack Hughes posted 18 goals and 17 assists off 0.88 xG/60 at 11.5%, suggesting slight outperformance.

Florida's defensive weakness centers on Brad Marchand. New Jersey's extends to Johnathan Kovacevic.

The contest hinges on whether New Jersey regresses upward toward their underlying metrics. Florida's advantage, if any, lies in refusing to overachieve relative to their chances. Expect a tightly managed game decided by marginal execution.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NJD 52%
52%
NJD
Model favorite
48%
52%
FLA50NJD

NJD by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 2.5–2.6 NJD; 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
FLA← edge
edge →NJD
49.0%50.0%
52.0%51.0%
2.482.45
2.562.50
1.981.66
2.212.23
0.9890.971

FLA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.971) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
FLA
3-7-0
-3 GD · 2d rest
NJD
3-7-0
-11 GD · 3d rest
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Devils are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
FLA
Expected in goal
S. Bobrovsky
2 days rest.808 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NJD
Expected in goal
J. Markstrom
3 days rest.962 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page