Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
← Thu, Mar 5 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at WPG

Jets pull away from the Lightning

FinalThu, Mar 5
TBLTampa Bay Lightning1WPGWinnipeg Jets4
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 1 · WPG 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:41 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

Winnipeg's 4-1 victory was decisive, but Tampa Bay's collapse was stark: the Lightning went scoreless on six high-danger chances and underperformed their expected goals by 2.38, a shortfall that revealed poor execution under pressure.

The underlying numbers confirmed Winnipeg's dominance. The Jets controlled 59% of expected goals (4.92–3.38) and held 53% of shot attempts (30–27). High-danger chances barely separated them—Jets 7, Lightning 6—but the finish was lopsided. WPG generated far more dangerous looks: 0.078 xG per shot versus 0.057 for Tampa, a quality difference that compounded.

C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 2.38 above expected versus A. Vasilevskiy's 1.92. Both goalies exceeded expectations.

The Jets were lethal off the rush, converting 3 goals on 33 rush chances. Both teams crashed the net with similar intensity (WPG 3 rebound opportunities, 1 converted; TBL 5 rebound opportunities, 1 converted), but only Winnipeg capitalized elsewhere.

K. Connor's wrist shot from the doorstep at 17:59 of the third punctuated Winnipeg's control. M. Scheifele (1G, 1A) and A. Iafallo (2A) provided support.

Winnipeg underperformed their xG by only 0.92 goals; Tampa underperformed by 2.38, the chasm that sealed the outcome.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 5
TBL
1
WPG
4

Jets pull away from the Lightning

Chances 3.4 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.38
WPG
4.92
41% of the chances59%

The board read TBL 1, WPG 4. The chances read TBL 3.4, WPG 4.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
−0.9
goals above expected
WPG4.92 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL3.38 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning left 2.4 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 15:31WPGM. Barron0–1
  2. P2 19:42WPGM. Scheifele0–2
  3. P3 01:52TBLB. PointPP1–2
  4. P3 05:34WPGG. Nyquist1–3
  5. P3 17:59WPGK. ConnorEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
43 shots
1
Final
87 shots
WPG
44 shots
4
TBL attackWPG attack
TBL WPG Goal
43
shots · 1 in
44
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLWPG
0 / 6
1.33 xG
High danger
2 / 7
2.47 xG
1 / 13
1.40 xG
Medium
1 / 22
2.02 xG
0 / 40
0.66 xG
Low
1 / 34
0.43 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. Hellebuyck
+2.4
WPG · 26/27
A
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.9
TBL · 26/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Jets 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 5–8no goals
    2ndshots 7–14
    1. 15:31WPGM. Barron(C. Koepke, T. Pearson)0–1
    2. 19:42WPGM. Scheifele(A. Iafallo, K. Connor)0–2
    3rdshots 15–8
    1. 01:52TBLB. Pointpower play(J. Guentzel, D. Raddysh)1–2
    2. 05:34WPGG. Nyquist(J. Toews, T. Pearson)1–3
    3. 17:59WPGK. Connorempty net(M. Scheifele, A. Iafallo)1–4

    score reads TBL–WPG

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.92
    WPG chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.9
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.046
    WPG puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    51.6%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.38Expected goals4.92
    WPG 59% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal30
    6High-danger chances7
    59All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: TBL 51% · WPG 49%
    Faceoffs · WPG won59%off62%neu48%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TBL0 / 6 · 1.33 xG
    WPG2 / 7 · 2.47 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TBL1 / 13 · 1.40 xG
    WPG1 / 22 · 2.02 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TBL0 / 40 · 0.66 xG
    WPG1 / 34 · 0.43 xG

    TBL went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.33 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TBL
    1 G · 3.38 xG · -2.4
    WPG
    4 G · 4.92 xG · -0.9
    0123456

    TBL finished -2.4 against expected, WPG -0.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TBL
    WRIST1/21
    SLAP0/7
    TIP IN0/6
    SNAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/5
    BAT0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/16
    WPG
    WRIST3/27
    SLAP1/7
    TIP IN0/5
    SNAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/0
    BAT0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/19
    TBL
    WPG
    Off the rush
    0 G on 28
    2.03 xG
    3 G on 33
    3.91 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 5
    0.98 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.55 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 1-for-21, WPG 3-for-27. WPG 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 · 26/29 · .897
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/72.5+0.5
    Medium1/222.0+1.0
    Low1/340.4-0.6

    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

    C. Hellebuyck
    WPG · 26/27 · .963
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/61.3+1.3
    Medium1/131.4+0.4
    Low0/400.7+0.7

    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
    TBL
    43 shots
    1
    Final
    87 shots
    WPG
    44 shots
    4
    TBL attackWPG attack
    TBL WPG Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, WPG 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
    K. Connor
    #81 · L · WPG
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:17 on ice · +2
    M. Scheifele
    #55 · C · WPG
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 21:07 on ice · +2
    A. Iafallo
    #9 · L · WPG
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 17:43 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 5
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:39 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 toss-up: Tampa at 2.6 goals, Winnipeg at 2.4, Lightning at 53% win probability. That's as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    The Lightning own the underlying play. At 5v5 they generate 54.0% expected goals to Winnipeg's 48.0%, their Corsi% running 53.0% to the Jets' 49.0%—puck control metrics that tend to repeat. Winnipeg arrives underwater: -10 goal differential over their last ten.

    The variance angle matters more here. Tampa's PDO sits at 1.019, suggesting unsustainable luck—they're winning the margin by more than their play warrants. Winnipeg's 0.998 PDO is the inverse. One team due for correction; the other for improvement.

    A. Vasilevskiy takes a back-to-back for Tampa; C. Hellebuyck faces the same for Winnipeg. Tired starters or surprise backups could tip the game on rest alone.

    Brandon Hagel anchors Tampa's attack at 1.10 expected goals per 60, with 23 goals and 26 assists on 15.8% shooting. Anthony Cirelli (0.95 xG/60, 15 goals, 17.0% shooting) offers secondary production with conversion that exceeds opportunity. For Winnipeg, Kyle Connor owns 25 goals and 30 assists despite just 0.83 xG/60, evidence of elite shot selection. Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6 goals, 6 assists) operates on 8.6% shooting, well-positioned for positive regression.

    Victor Hedman carries Tampa's defensive burden; Colin Miller the same for the Jets.

    Tampa's play is better. Winnipeg's luck is worse. The Lightning are likelier to win—but barely. Variance decides this game, which is why the model sees it as a coin flip.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 53%
    53%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    TBL50WPG

    TBL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.4 WPG; 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 →WPG
    54.0%48.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.672.34
    2.282.55
    2.381.90
    1.852.10
    1.0190.998

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.998) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    TBL
    6-4-0
    +2 GD · 1d rest
    WPG
    4-3-3
    -10 GD · 1d rest
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    WPG 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 48.0%.
    • 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 48.0%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • A. Vasilevskiy is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Jets are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
    • 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
    A. Vasilevskiy
    back-to-back.810 last start
    Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    WPG
    Expected in goal
    C. Hellebuyck
    back-to-back.895 last start
    Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 GSAx this season
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

    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
    WPG
    Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
    0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
    Kyle Connor25G 30A
    0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page