Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater

Breakdown · CBJ at TBL

Blue Jackets run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Mar 10

CBJColumbus Blue Jackets5 TBLTampa Bay Lightning2

The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 5 · TBL 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:35 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

Columbus controlled 72% of 5v5 expected goals (4.82–1.88). The 5-2 victory made sense—they earned this one on the shot sheet, not a bounce.

Shot attempts broke 32–18, which meant the Lightning spent the night defending. High-danger chances went 9–2, a ratio that made the result inevitable. Columbus generated 0.093 expected goals per shot; Tampa Bay managed 0.040. The Jackets found prime looks while the Lightning scrounged from the perimeter.

Where Columbus made it stick: two goals on 27 rush chances and a power play that buried 2 on 10 shots for 0.73 expected goals. Efficiency in high-leverage spots.

A. Vasilevskiy saved 27 of 31 (0.871 SV%), a competent effort given the barrage. E. Merzlikins stopped 16 of 18 (0.889 SV%), also solid. But no goalie salvages a team that can't generate chances. The Lightning scored twice from low-danger areas—opportunistic goals that win close games. This wasn't close. Columbus won because they controlled the differential everywhere: shot volume, shot quality, transition speed.

Final: CBJ 5 – TBL 2

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 10

CBJ

TBL

Blue Jackets run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.8 – 1.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CBJ

4.82

TBL

1.88

72% of the chances28%

The board read CBJ 5, TBL 2. The chances read CBJ 4.8, TBL 1.9.

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

Luck check

CBJ

+0.2

goals above expected

CBJ4.82 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

TBL1.88 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

P1 13:38TBLG. Goncalves0–1
P2 05:57CBJI. Provorov1–1
P2 06:27CBJC. Garland2–1
P2 11:42CBJK. MarchenkoPP3–1
P2 16:23TBLJ. Moser3–2
P3 04:00CBJC. GarlandPP4–2
P3 15:28CBJD. FabbroEN5–2

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

Where the shots came from

CBJ

44 shots

Final

73 shots

TBL

29 shots

CBJ TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CBJTBL

1 / 9

2.25 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.45 xG

3 / 19

2.07 xG

Medium

0 / 9

0.94 xG

1 / 24

0.50 xG

Low

2 / 36

0.48 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 1 of 9, TBL 0 of 2.

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

In the net

B+

A. Vasilevskiy

+0.8

TBL · 27/31

E. Merzlikins

−0.1

CBJ · 16/18

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 9–4

13:38TBLG. Goncalves(V. Hedman, N. Kucherov)0–1

2ndshots 13–8

05:57CBJI. Provorov(D. Mateychuk, C. Coyle)1–1
06:27CBJC. Garland(K. Johnson, S. Monahan)2–1
11:42CBJK. Marchenkopower play(A. Fantilli, Z. Werenski)3–1
16:23TBLJ. Moser(A. Cirelli)3–2

3rdshots 10–6

04:00CBJC. Garlandpower play(S. Monahan, Z. Werenski)4–2
15:28CBJD. Fabbroempty net(E. Merzlikins)5–2

score reads CBJ–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.82

CBJ chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.054

CBJ puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

52.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.82Expected goals1.88

CBJ 72% of the chance quality

32Shots on goal18

9High-danger chances2

52All attempts (Corsi)47

Adjusted for score: CBJ 50% · TBL 51%

Faceoffs · TBL won63%off56%neu52%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CBJ1 / 9 · 2.25 xG

TBL0 / 2 · 0.45 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CBJ3 / 19 · 2.07 xG

TBL0 / 9 · 0.94 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CBJ1 / 24 · 0.50 xG

TBL2 / 36 · 0.48 xG

TBL went 2-for-36 from low danger on 0.48 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CBJ

5 G · 4.82 xG · +0.2

TBL

2 G · 1.88 xG · +0.1

0123456

CBJ finished +0.2 against expected, TBL +0.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CBJ

SNAP0/28

WRIST3/5

SLAP2/3

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/2

OTHER0/8

TBL

SNAP0/6

WRIST1/11

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN1/3

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/0

OTHER0/18

CBJ

TBL

Off the rush

2 G on 27

2.54 xG

1 G on 21

1.44 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

1.44 xG

0 G on 1

0.01 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CBJ went 0-for-28, TBL 0-for-6. CBJ scored 2 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

E. Merzlikins

CBJ · 16/18 · .889

-0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium0/90.9+0.9

Low2/360.5-1.5

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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 27/31 · .871

+0.8

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/92.3+1.3

Medium3/192.1-0.9

Low1/240.5-0.5

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

CBJ

44 shots

Final

73 shots

TBL

29 shots

CBJ TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

Z. Werenski

#8 · D · CBJ

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:59 on ice

S. Monahan

#23 · C · CBJ

0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 15:53 on ice · +1

C. Garland

#83 · R · CBJ

2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 11:39 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 10

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:31 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 models project a 2.5–2.7 goal game with Tampa Bay at 54% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find in a matchup this tight.

Columbus brings momentum (6-1-3 in their last 10), but the underlying talent split favors the Lightning. At 5v5, Tampa Bay leads decisively in expected goals at 54.0% xG% compared to Columbus's 52.0%, while also owning a 53.0% to 51.0% edge in Corsi%. Both advantages are narrow but consistent.

The Lightning's PDO of 1.019 reveals the risk: they're running hot on luck and will regress. Columbus at 1.003 suggests a team playing closer to its true talent level. Factor in J. Greaves on a back-to-back—watch the goaltending choice an hour before puck drop.

Boone Jenner drives the Columbus attack at 0.98 xG/60, posting 11 goals and 21 assists with 2 high-danger goals, though his 9.6% shooting rate hints at outperformance. Mathieu Olivier (12 goals, 9 assists, 1 high-danger goal) generates 0.89 xG/60 while shooting 13.3%, a rate that rarely sustains. Defensively, Conor Garland is the liability.

Tampa counters with Brandon Hagel, who combines 1.10 xG/60 with 23 goals, 26 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and a 15.8% shooting rate that holds for his volume. Anthony Cirelli (15 goals, 18 assists, 5 high-danger goals) runs 0.95 xG/60 on 17.0% shooting, scoring consistently from the places that matter. Victor Hedman is their defensive weak link.

Neither team generates efficiently from high-danger or rebound situations—a particular problem for Columbus if Greaves isn't at full strength. The verdict rests on whether recent form trumps underlying talent, or whether shooting percentages hold. With the models this aligned, variance decides the winner.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 54%

54%

TBL

Model favorite

46%

54%

CBJ50TBL

TBL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CBJ 2.5–2.7 TBL; 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

CBJ← edge

edge →TBL

52.0%54.0%

51.0%53.0%

2.632.67

2.432.28

2.122.38

1.981.85

1.0031.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.019) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

CBJ

6-1-3

+8 GD · 1d rest

TBL

5-5-0

-1 GD · 2d rest

1.003

CBJ PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.019

TBL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

J. Greaves is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Blue Jackets are the hotter team by points pace (6-1-3 in 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

CBJ

Expected in goal

J. Greaves

back-to-back.839 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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.

TBL

Expected in goal

J. Johansson

2 days rest.810 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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

CBJ

Boone Jenner11G 21A

0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh

Mathieu Olivier12G 9A

0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page