Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater

Breakdown · TBL at BUF

Sabres hold off the Lightning

FinalSun, Mar 8

TBLTampa Bay Lightning7 BUFBuffalo Sabres8

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 7 · BUF 8

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:16 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

Buffalo's 8-7 victory required both shot volume and finishing luck. The Sabres held 59% of shot attempts (42–29) and overperformed their expected goals by 2.73 to eke out a one-goal win. The underlying game supported a close result: 5.27 expected goals for Buffalo, 4.45 for Tampa. Both teams got extraordinarily lucky; the Sabres just got luckier.

The Sabres were clinical in the high-danger zone, converting 5 of 11 chances for a 46% finishing rate. The game featured 19 combined high-danger chances—a sign that both teams generated quality looks. The Sabres prevailed on the rush with superior finishing: 7 goals on 31 chances versus Tampa's 5 on 32.

Josh Doan's doorstep finish at 15:43 of the third proved decisive. It came in a sequence where both teams had found rhythm but the Sabres' conversion edge tipped the scale.

U. Luukkonen finished with a 0.786 save percentage against expected, leaving goals on the table despite the win. J. Johansson faced the harder workload, seeing 42 shots and posting a 0.810 save percentage, falling 2.73 goals short of expectation.

The Sabres' dominant power play sealed it: 4 goals on 15 attempts from just 1.62 expected goals.

Three Stars:

T. Thompson (BUF, #72) — 4 assists in 19:39
J. Moser (TBL, #90) — 1 goal, 2 assists in 26:17
R. Dahlin (BUF, #26) — 1 goal, 2 assists in 26:16

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 8

TBL

BUF

Sabres hold off the Lightning

Chances 4.5 – 5.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TBL

4.45

BUF

5.27

46% of the chances54%

The board read TBL 7, BUF 8. The chances read TBL 4.5, BUF 5.3.

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

Luck check

BUF

+2.7

goals above expected

BUF5.27 expected · 8 scored

Expected

Scored

TBL4.45 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

The Sabres scored 2.7 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 08:26BUFJ. DoanPP0–1
P2 02:15BUFJ. ZuckerPP0–2
P2 05:10BUFA. TuchPP0–3
P2 07:55TBLC. Perry1–3
P2 11:07BUFA. TuchSH1–4
P2 12:26TBLN. KucherovPP2–4
P2 14:46TBLZ. Girgensons3–4

+8 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

TBL

45 shots

Final

98 shots

BUF

53 shots

TBL BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 7 in

shots · 8 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TBLBUF

3 / 8

2.07 xG

High danger

5 / 11

2.54 xG

3 / 16

1.74 xG

Medium

2 / 20

2.09 xG

1 / 39

0.64 xG

Low

1 / 30

0.64 xG

The Sabres buried 5 of 11 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

U. Luukkonen

−1.6

BUF · 22/28

J. Johansson

−2.7

TBL · 34/42

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Sabres hold off 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 6–10

08:26BUFJ. Doanpower play(T. Thompson, B. Byram)0–1

2ndshots 10–15

02:15BUFJ. Zuckerpower play(R. Dahlin, T. Thompson)0–2
05:10BUFA. Tuchpower play(T. Thompson, N. Ostlund)0–3
07:55TBLC. Perry(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)1–3
11:07BUFA. Tuchshorthanded(B. Byram)1–4
12:26TBLN. Kucherovpower play(D. Raddysh)2–4
14:46TBLZ. Girgensons(Y. Gourde, J. Moser)3–4
17:37TBLJ. Moser(C. Geekie)4–4

3rdshots 13–17

00:59TBLN. Kucherov(B. Hagel, J. Moser)5–4
05:46TBLB. Point6–4
06:12BUFS. Carrick(Z. Benson, M. Kesselring)6–5
09:48TBLB. Hagel(A. Cirelli, D. Raddysh)7–5
11:03BUFR. Dahlin(T. Thompson, B. Byram)7–6
14:29BUFJ. Zucker(R. McLeod)7–7
15:43BUFJ. Doanpower play(J. Zucker, R. Dahlin)7–8

score reads TBL–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.27

BUF chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.020

BUF puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

49.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.45Expected goals5.27

BUF 54% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal42

8High-danger chances11

63All attempts (Corsi)61

Adjusted for score: TBL 53% · BUF 47%

Faceoffs · BUF won86%off43%neu36%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TBL3 / 8 · 2.07 xG

BUF5 / 11 · 2.54 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TBL3 / 16 · 1.74 xG

BUF2 / 20 · 2.09 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TBL1 / 39 · 0.64 xG

BUF1 / 30 · 0.64 xG

BUF went 5-for-11 from high danger on 2.54 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TBL

7 G · 4.45 xG · +2.5

BUF

8 G · 5.27 xG · +2.7

0123456789

TBL finished +2.5 against expected, BUF +2.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TBL

WRIST3/4

SNAP2/26

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND1/5

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER1/19

BUF

WRIST4/32

SNAP1/6

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND2/4

TIP IN1/4

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/8

TBL

BUF

Off the rush

5 G on 32

3.11 xG

7 G on 31

3.30 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.48 xG

1 G on 7

1.14 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 3-for-4, BUF 4-for-32. BUF scored 7 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

J. Johansson

TBL · 34/42 · .810

-2.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger5/112.5-2.5

Medium2/202.1+0.1

Low1/300.6-0.4

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

U. Luukkonen

BUF · 22/28 · .786

-1.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/82.1-0.9

Medium3/161.7-1.3

Low1/390.6-0.4

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

98 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TBL

45 shots

Final

98 shots

BUF

53 shots

TBL BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

T. Thompson

#72 · C · BUF

0 G · 4 A · 3 SOG · 19:39 on ice · -1

J. Moser

#90 · D · TBL

1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 26:17 on ice · +2

R. Dahlin

#26 · D · BUF

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 26:16 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Mar 8

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:26 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 2.6–2.5 Lightning victory, with Tampa at 51% win probability. That's as close to a pick'em as markets get.

Tampa owns the territorial battle. At 5v5, the Lightning generate 54.0% expected goals and control 53.0% of shot attempts—a clear structural edge. Buffalo hasn't been outplayed, exactly, but it's been out-chanced at 50.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi. When one team generates better looks consistently, it usually surfaces in final goals, even if tonight it doesn't.

Both teams are running hot and due for some regression. Tampa's 1.019 PDO and Buffalo's 1.020 PDO are both inflated relative to league average—each has converted above its expected rate. That doesn't mean they'll collapse, but if the game stays close in shots and danger, expect variance to drift back toward the mean in the Sabres' direction.

A. Lyon faces a back-to-back start, which could mean a backup appearance or a tired starter. Either scenario hands Buffalo a conceivable edge in net.

Watch Brandon Hagel set the tone for Tampa. At 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes, he's creating at an elite rate; his 23 goals on 15.8% shooting suggests he's also converting at a clip that may not hold. Anthony Cirelli has been more consistent—0.95 xG/60 with 17.0% shooting, backed by five high-danger goals. If Cirelli sustains that rate, he's dangerous regardless of luck.

Buffalo counters with Jason Zucker, who carries 1.07 xG/60 and has buried six high-danger chances. Josh Doan (1.01 xG/60) is a more efficient finisher—15 goals on 11.5% shooting—meaning his upside is less about luck and more about volume. Either finds space, and this game swings.

The math says coin flip. The underlying play favors Tampa. The regression, the goaltending state, and the high-danger talent available to Buffalo suggest this one could go either way. That's exactly what 51% looks like.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 51%

51%

TBL

Model favorite

51%

49%

TBL50BUF

TBL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.5 BUF; 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 →BUF

54.0%50.0%

53.0%49.0%

2.672.55

2.282.55

2.382.35

1.851.90

1.0191.020

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.020) says BUF 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 · 2d rest

BUF

7-2-1

+8 GD · 1d rest

1.019

TBL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF 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 50.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
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 50.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
A. Lyon is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TBL

Expected in goal

A. Vasilevskiy

2 days rest.897 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BUF

Expected in goal

A. Lyon

back-to-back.920 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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

BUF

Jason Zucker14G 14A

1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh

Josh Doan15G 18A

1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page