Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
Breakdown · TBL at TOR

Lightning pull away from the Maple Leafs

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 5 · TOR 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:24 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

A. Vasilevskiy turned 27 saves on 29 shots into a 0.931 save percentage — 1.04 goals better than expected — but the Lightning didn't need the bonus. They controlled 60% of expected goals (4.48–3.04), a gap that justified their 5-2 blowout.

The Maple Leafs generated 40% of chances despite 47% of shot attempts. High-danger chances told the real story: Lightning 6, Maple Leafs 3. Nicholas Robertson's wraparound from the doorstep (P3, 19:29) was the turning point; Tampa Bay never trailed after that.

A. Stolarz's 0.875 save percentage offered no resistance. The Leafs' extra attempts never mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 7
TBL
5
TOR
2

Lightning pull away from the Maple Leafs

Chances 4.5 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
4.48
TOR
3.04
60% of the chances40%

The board read TBL 5, TOR 2. The chances read TBL 4.5, TOR 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+0.5
goals above expected
TBL4.48 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR3.04 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 04:50TORM. Maccelli0–1
  2. P1 05:36TBLR. McDonagh1–1
  3. P1 12:30TBLJ. Guentzel2–1
  4. P1 13:48TBLC. Perry3–1
  5. P1 15:06TBLO. BjorkstrandPP4–1
  6. P3 15:41TBLB. HagelEN5–1
  7. P3 19:29TORN. Robertson5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
44 shots
5
Final
79 shots
TOR
35 shots
2
TBL attackTOR attack
TBL TOR Goal
44
shots · 5 in
35
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLTOR
1 / 6
2.10 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.80 xG
3 / 18
1.97 xG
Medium
1 / 17
1.79 xG
1 / 32
0.41 xG
Low
1 / 27
0.44 xG

The Maple Leafs went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.0
TBL · 27/29
B
A. Stolarz
+0.5
TOR · 28/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning pull away from the Maple Leafs

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 12–11
  1. 04:50TORM. Maccelli(W. Nylander)0–1
  2. 05:36TBLR. McDonagh(N. Kucherov, B. Point)1–1
  3. 12:30TBLJ. Guentzel(B. Point, N. Kucherov)2–1
  4. 13:48TBLC. Perry(B. Hagel, A. Cirelli)3–1
  5. 15:06TBLO. Bjorkstrandpower play(N. Kucherov, J. Guentzel)4–1
2ndshots 7–8no goals
    3rdshots 14–10
    1. 15:41TBLB. Hagelempty net(A. Cirelli, N. Kucherov)5–1
    2. 19:29TORN. Robertson5–2

    score reads TBL–TOR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.48
    TBL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.5
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.047
    TBL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    54.4%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.48Expected goals3.04
    TBL 60% of the chance quality
    33Shots on goal29
    6High-danger chances3
    56All attempts (Corsi)47
    Adjusted for score: TBL 49% · TOR 52%
    Faceoffs · TOR won63%off61%neu53%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TBL1 / 6 · 2.10 xG
    TOR0 / 3 · 0.80 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TBL3 / 18 · 1.97 xG
    TOR1 / 17 · 1.79 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TBL1 / 32 · 0.41 xG
    TOR1 / 27 · 0.44 xG

    TBL went 1-for-6 from high danger on 2.10 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TBL
    5 G · 4.48 xG · +0.5
    TOR
    2 G · 3.04 xG · -1.0
    0123456

    TBL finished +0.5 against expected, TOR -1.0.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TBL
    WRIST2/19
    BACKHAND1/8
    TIP IN0/5
    SNAP1/4
    SLAP1/6
    DEFLECTED0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/12
    TOR
    WRIST1/20
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/4
    SNAP0/4
    SLAP0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND1/1
    OTHER0/12
    TBL
    TOR
    Off the rush
    4 G on 30
    3.37 xG
    2 G on 25
    2.28 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 5
    0.66 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.37 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-19, TOR 1-for-20. 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. Vasilevskiy
    TBL · 27/29 · .931
    +1.0
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.8+0.8
    Medium1/171.8+0.8
    Low1/270.4-0.6

    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

    A. Stolarz
    TOR · 28/32 · .875
    +0.5
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/62.1+1.1
    Medium3/182.0-1.0
    Low1/320.4-0.6

    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

    79 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TBL
    44 shots
    5
    Final
    79 shots
    TOR
    35 shots
    2
    TBL attackTOR attack
    TBL TOR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, TOR 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
    0 G · 4 A · 1 SOG · 18:36 on ice · +3
    B. Hagel
    #38 · L · TBL
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:50 on ice · +2
    J. Guentzel
    #59 · C · TBL
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:06 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Mar 7
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:02 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 favors Tampa Bay by nearly three-tenths of a goal. The Lightning sit at 55% win probability in a projected 2.7-2.4 victory, a lean built on territorial dominance and sustained underlying play. But the shadow of regression looms: Tampa Bay's PDO of 1.019 means the team is running hot and due to come back to earth.

    The underlying metrics belong to the Lightning. They control the shot-generation game at 54.0% 5v5 xG against Toronto's 46.0%—a nine-point gap that predicts a territorial tilt. The Corsi numbers reinforce it: 53.0% in Lightning favor versus Toronto's 45.0%, an eight-point advantage in raw possession.

    Toronto's recent form offers no counterargument. The Maple Leafs are -12 in goal differential over their last 10 games, a deficit that suggests both offensive droughts and defensive leaks. The underlying xG and Corsi metrics confirm the first: they are being outshot at the level of generation, not just luck.

    The PDO story is where the game lives. Tampa Bay's 1.019 is a full 17 basis points above the Maple Leafs' 1.002. Brandon Hagel sits at 1.10 xG/60 with a 15.8% shooting rate—23 goals and 26 assists. Anthony Cirelli's 17.0% shooting rate is similarly unsustainable; he's at 0.95 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists. Neither rate holds. When regression hits—and it will—the Lightning's shot volume advantage shrinks in terms of goals.

    Toronto counters with Auston Matthews at 1.10 xG/60, though his 10.6% conversion rate on 17 goals and 13 assists suggests downside risk. John Tavares sits at 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals and 24 assists, an assist-heavy season at 12.4% shooting that distributes Toronto's scoring.

    The goaltending matchup introduces fatigue. Both J. Woll and A. Vasilevskiy are on back-to-backs, raising the prospect of either a backup start or tired starters managing the mid-game collapse that follows consecutive nights. Neither team has converted on high-danger or rebound chances at meaningful rates—both logging 0% in those categories—which suggests defensive structures are sound, though the uniformity is unusual.

    Victor Hedman represents Tampa Bay's defensive liability; Bo Groulx does the same for Toronto. The model identifies them as pressure points.

    The Lightning own the play. The regression question is only whether Tampa Bay can hold serve until the Leafs' underlying rate of shot generation finally overcomes an extended run of bad luck.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 55%
    55%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    55%
    45%
    TBL50TOR

    TBL by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.7–2.4 TOR; 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 →TOR
    54.0%46.0%
    53.0%45.0%
    2.672.24
    2.282.67
    2.382.09
    1.852.52
    1.0191.002

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.002) 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
    TOR
    3-5-2
    -12 GD · 1d rest
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.002
    TOR 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.
    • J. Woll 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 Maple Leafs are underwater at -12 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.897 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.

    TOR
    Expected in goal
    J. Woll
    back-to-back.783 last start
    Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next