Backcheck
Recap · TBL at MIN

Wild pull away from the Lightning

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

By the ModelJul 12, 5:24 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
TBL
Tampa Bay Lightning
1
Home
MIN
Minnesota Wild
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.51Expected goals2.98
54% share for the better side
25Shot attempts (SOG)22
1High-danger chances4
53Corsi (all attempts)50
Score-adjusted: 57% / 43%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Minnesota demolished Tampa Bay 5-1, but expected goals split almost even at 2.98–2.51—this game wasn't nearly as dominant as the scoreboard suggested.

The Wild held 47% of shot attempts and edged high-danger chances 4-1, but those gaps miss the real story. The underlying numbers said close. The scoreboard said massacre. The explanation: elite finishing by Minnesota and a masterclass by F. Gustavsson.

The Wild overperformed their xG by 2.02 goals, converting low-danger opportunities that should have stayed empty. Two goals came from low-danger spots—the kinds teams live to surrender. Minnesota also scored 3 times on 23 rush chances, a shooting pace unsustainable long-term. F. Gustavsson saved 1.51 goals above expected, the game's decisive advantage.

Tampa Bay couldn't capitalize. The Lightning underperformed xG by 1.51, wasting quality chances. A. Vasilevskiy stopped 17 of 21 shots for a 0.810 SV%, tracking 1.02 goals worse than expected. He faced volume he couldn't overcome.

The gap between the underlying metrics (nearly even) and the result (4-goal win) captures Minnesota's night: when puck luck breaks your way and your goaltender steals one, scorelines inflate fast.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL0 / 1 · 0.21 xG
MIN1 / 4 · 1.15 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL1 / 16 · 1.79 xG
MIN2 / 11 · 1.11 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL0 / 36 · 0.51 xG
MIN2 / 35 · 0.73 xG

MIN went 2-for-35 from low danger on 0.73 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
1 G · 2.51 xG · -1.5
MIN
5 G · 2.98 xG · +2.0
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
A. VasilevskiyTBL
-1.0
F. GustavssonMIN
+1.5

TBL finished -1.5 against expected, MIN +2.0 — F. Gustavsson (MIN) saved 1.5 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
WRIST1/18
SNAP0/5
BACKHAND0/3
SLAP0/5
DEFLECTED0/4
TIP IN0/2
OTHER0/16
MIN
WRIST3/19
SNAP1/8
BACKHAND1/5
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
TIP IN0/0
OTHER0/14
TBL
MIN
Off the rush
1 G on 20 · 1.75 xG
3 G on 23 · 1.80 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1 · 0.15 xG
0 G on 0 · 0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 1-for-18, MIN 3-for-19. MIN scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Boldy
#12 · L · MIN
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 19:57 TOI · +2
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 26:01 TOI · +1
B. Faber
#7 · D · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:12 TOI · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • F. Gustavsson (MIN) stopped 1.5 goals above expected.
  • A. Vasilevskiy (TBL) gave up 1.0 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • MIN scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • MIN was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • MIN outperformed their expected goals by 2.0 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
  • TBL underperformed xG by 1.5 — wasted quality chances.
  • F. Gustavsson (MIN) saved 1.5 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · TBL at MIN · 9:30 PM ET

Lightning at Wild: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 5:22 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

50%
TBL
Model favorite
50%
50%
TBL50MIN

TBL by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.52.5 MIN; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

TBL← edge
edge →MIN
54.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
53.0%Corsi%48.0%
2.67xGF / 602.55
2.28xGA / 602.40
2.38Goals for / gm2.04
1.85Goals against / gm1.93
1.019PDO — luck, not skill1.007

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.019 vs 1.007) says TBL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.5–2.5 finish with Tampa Bay at 50% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Tampa Bay owns a 54.0% expected-goal share and a 53.0% Corsi rate, signaling territorial control. Minnesota's 52.0% xG% and 48.0% Corsi suggest they'll chase possession. The Lightning's PDO of 1.019 indicates positive variance; Minnesota's 1.007 runs closer to true talent. Expect some Tampa Bay regression.

Minnesota must contain Brandon Hagel (1.10 xG/60, 23 goals, 2 high-danger chances). Anthony Cirelli (15 goals, 17.0% shooting) is the secondary threat. Tampa Bay targets Matt Boldy (0.89 xG/60, 22 goals, 5 high-danger chances) as Minnesota's primary scorer. Robby Fabbri (0.88 xG/60, 2 goals, 6.9% shooting) looms secondary, though his availability is uncertain. Victor Hedman anchors Tampa's defense; Matt Kiersted is Minnesota's weak link.

The Lightning's territorial edge won't guarantee finish. Minnesota's balanced underlying numbers make this a rare genuine flip—neither team projects to dominate.

Players to Watch

  • Brandon Hagel (TBL): 1.10 xG/60, 23G 26A, 2 HD goals, 15.8% shooting
  • Anthony Cirelli (TBL): 0.95 xG/60, 15G 18A, 5 HD goals, 17.0% shooting
  • Matt Boldy (MIN): 0.89 xG/60, 22G 18A, 5 HD goals, 13.7% shooting
  • Robby Fabbri (MIN): 0.88 xG/60, 2G 3A, 1 HD goal, 6.9% shooting
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
MIN
Matt Boldy22G 18A
0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Robby Fabbri2G 3A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters