Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater

Breakdown · TBL at MIN

Wild pull away from the Lightning

FinalTue, Mar 3

TBLTampa Bay Lightning1 MINMinnesota Wild5

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 1 · MIN 5

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:24 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

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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 3

TBL

MIN

Wild pull away from the Lightning

Chances 2.5 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TBL

2.51

MIN

2.98

46% of the chances54%

The board read TBL 1, MIN 5. The chances read TBL 2.5, MIN 3.0.

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

Luck check

MIN

+2.0

goals above expected

MIN2.98 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

TBL2.51 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Wild scored 2.0 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 03:46MINB. Faber0–1
P2 04:59MINM. ZuccarelloPP0–2
P2 15:07TBLN. Kucherov1–2
P2 17:10MINY. Trenin1–3
P3 06:53MINQ. Hughes1–4
P3 16:41MINK. KaprizovEN1–5

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

Where the shots came from

TBL

37 shots

Final

73 shots

MIN

36 shots

TBL MIN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TBLMIN

0 / 1

0.21 xG

High danger

1 / 4

1.15 xG

1 / 16

1.79 xG

Medium

2 / 11

1.11 xG

0 / 36

0.51 xG

Low

2 / 35

0.73 xG

High-danger looks: TBL 0 of 1, MIN 1 of 4.

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

In the net

F. Gustavsson

+1.5

MIN · 24/25

D-

A. Vasilevskiy

−1.0

TBL · 17/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Wild pull away from the Lightning

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 12–5

03:46MINB. Faber(M. Johansson, M. Boldy)0–1

2ndshots 6–7

04:59MINM. Zuccarellopower play(Q. Hughes, M. Boldy)0–2
15:07TBLN. Kucherov(B. Point, J. Guentzel)1–2
17:10MINY. Trenin(M. Zuccarello)1–3

3rdshots 7–10

06:53MINQ. Hughes1–4
16:41MINK. Kaprizovempty net(B. Faber, M. Boldy)1–5

score reads TBL–MIN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.98

MIN chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.081

MIN puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

48.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.51Expected goals2.98

MIN 54% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal22

1High-danger chances4

53All attempts (Corsi)50

Adjusted for score: TBL 57% · MIN 43%

Faceoffs · MIN won59%off47%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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

TBL finished -1.5 against expected, MIN +2.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

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

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. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 17/21 · .810

-1.0

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.1+0.1

Medium2/111.1-0.9

Low2/350.7-1.3

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

F. Gustavsson

MIN · 24/25 · .960

+1.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.2+0.2

Medium1/161.8+0.8

Low0/360.5+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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TBL

37 shots

Final

73 shots

MIN

36 shots

TBL MIN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, MIN 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

M. Boldy

#12 · L · MIN

0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 19:57 on ice · +2

Q. Hughes

#43 · D · MIN

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 26:01 on ice · +1

B. Faber

#7 · D · MIN

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:12 on ice · +3

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, 5:22 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 2.5–2.5 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

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 50%

50%

TBL

Model favorite

50%

TBL50MIN

TBL by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.5–2.5 MIN; 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

TBL← edge

edge →MIN

54.0%52.0%

53.0%48.0%

2.672.55

2.282.40

2.382.04

1.851.93

1.0191.007

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.007) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TBL

7-3-0

+7 GD · 2d rest

MIN

7-2-1

+8 GD · 2d rest

1.019

TBL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.007

MIN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

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 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

TBL

Expected in goal

J. Johansson

2 days rest.952 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MIN

Expected in goal

F. Gustavsson

2 days rest.913 last start

Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page