Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
Breakdown · DET at FLA

Panthers hold off the Red Wings

The verdict · stolen

The Panthers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.77–3.29 and won anyway.

DET 3 · FLA 4
◆ 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

The Panthers won 4-3 on a night when the underlying numbers favored Detroit. The Red Wings generated 3.77 expected goals to Florida's 3.29 and peppered D. Tarasov with eight high-danger chances to the Panthers' three. Yet the Panthers escaped with the win—a result that hinged on goaltending and the ruthlessness to capitalize on low-probability opportunities.

The Red Wings created the better looks. They generated 0.068 expected goals per shot compared to Florida's 0.050, evidence that Detroit sustained pressure in dangerous areas. But chance quality and conversion are different things. Detroit managed zero goals on eight high-danger chances, a variance gap the team will not close often.

D. Tarasov was impervious. He stopped all eight high-danger shots for a perfect 100 percent save percentage on those chances. His overall line was 25 saves on 28 shots—a 0.893 save percentage that beat his expected performance by 0.77 goals. Meanwhile, J. Gibson saved 24 of 28 (0.857 SV%) but underperformed by the same margin in the opposite direction.

The Panthers' victory came through low-danger conversion and goaltending. They scored twice from low-danger spots. Both teams thrived in transition—Florida three on 29 rush chances, Detroit three on 26—but Tarasov's wall at the high slot sealed it.

The inflection came when Carter Verhaeghe's wrist shot from the high slot beat J. Gibson at 19:45 of the third period, a shot that embodied the evening: Florida capitalizing when it mattered, Detroit unable to finish despite dominating the underlying play.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 10
DET
3
FLA
4

Panthers hold off the Red Wings

Chances 3.8 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
3.77
FLA
3.29
53% of the chances47%

The board read DET 3, FLA 4. The chances read DET 3.8, FLA 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
+0.7
goals above expected
FLA3.29 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
DET3.77 expected · 3 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 09:48FLAV. Hinostroza0–1
  2. P2 03:54DETP. Kane1–1
  3. P2 12:59DETJ. Faulk2–1
  4. P3 05:10FLAN. Mikkola2–2
  5. P3 06:32DETM. Kasper3–2
  6. P3 18:30FLAC. VerhaeghePP3–3
  7. P3 19:45FLAC. Verhaeghe3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
44 shots
3
Final
89 shots
FLA
45 shots
4
DET attackFLA attack
DET FLA Goal
44
shots · 3 in
45
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETFLA
0 / 8
1.83 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.62 xG
2 / 10
1.27 xG
Medium
2 / 18
2.05 xG
1 / 37
0.66 xG
Low
2 / 45
0.61 xG

The Red Wings went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Tarasov
+0.8
FLA · 25/28
D
J. Gibson
−0.7
DET · 24/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers hold off the Red Wings

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 11–6
  1. 09:48FLAV. Hinostroza(J. Boqvist, G. Forsling)0–1
2ndshots 12–9
  1. 03:54DETP. Kane(M. Seider, A. DeBrincat)1–1
  2. 12:59DETJ. Faulk(A. Copp)2–1
3rdshots 5–13
  1. 05:10FLAN. Mikkola(V. Hinostroza)2–2
  2. 06:32DETM. Kasper(E. Finnie, J. Faulk)3–2
  3. 18:30FLAC. Verhaeghepower play(M. Tkachuk)3–3
  4. 19:45FLAC. Verhaeghe(M. Tkachuk, S. Bennett)3–4

score reads DET–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.29
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.006
FLA puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
54.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.77Expected goals3.29
DET 53% of the chance quality
28Shots on goal28
8High-danger chances3
55All attempts (Corsi)66
Adjusted for score: DET 44% · FLA 56%
Faceoffs · FLA won53%off53%neu42%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DET0 / 8 · 1.83 xG
FLA0 / 3 · 0.62 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DET2 / 10 · 1.27 xG
FLA2 / 18 · 2.05 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DET1 / 37 · 0.66 xG
FLA2 / 45 · 0.61 xG

DET went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.83 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DET
3 G · 3.77 xG · -0.8
FLA
4 G · 3.29 xG · +0.7
012345

DET finished -0.8 against expected, FLA +0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DET
SNAP2/9
WRIST0/16
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND1/7
TIP IN0/0
DEFLECTED0/2
POKE0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/11
FLA
SNAP0/19
WRIST2/10
SLAP1/5
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN1/5
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/21
DET
FLA
Off the rush
3 G on 26
2.70 xG
3 G on 29
2.11 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
0.67 xG
0 G on 5
0.69 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: DET went 2-for-9, FLA 0-for-19. DET 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
J. Gibson
DET · 24/28 · .857
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.6+0.6
Medium2/182.0+0.1
Low2/450.6-1.4

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

D. Tarasov
FLA · 25/28 · .893
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/81.8+1.8
Medium2/101.3-0.7
Low1/370.7-0.3

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DET
44 shots
3
Final
89 shots
FLA
45 shots
4
DET attackFLA attack
DET FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET left, FLA 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
J. Faulk
#72 · D · DET
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:48 on ice · -1
C. Verhaeghe
#23 · C · FLA
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 17:09 on ice · +1
M. Tkachuk
#19 · L · FLA
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 15:52 on ice · +2
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, 6:51 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 has the Panthers at 52% win probability in a 2.5–2.6 expected-goal game. This is as close to a toss-up as projection exists.

Detroit enters on a recent heater (4–4–2 over 10 games), but neither team owns much territory. The Red Wings sit at –7 goal differential over their last ten; Florida is worse at –9. Both leak at similar rates at 5v5, where Detroit manages 49.0% expected goals for and Florida matches that exactly. The real separation lives in shot volume. Florida drives 52.0% Corsi at 5v5—a persistent territorial edge that compounds chances, even if both teams barely outscore their underlying models.

Detroit leans on Alex DeBrincat, generating 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes with 17 goals and 9.0% shooting. Marco Kasper backs him at 0.81 xG/60 with 7 goals on 6.1% shooting. Neither posts elite high-danger rates: DeBrincat has two high-danger goals across his 17; Kasper just one across seven. This mismatch—strong shooting percentage, weak high-danger output—suggests both are capitalizing on mid-range opportunities and secondary chances, not just living in the crease.

Florida counters with Sam Bennett at 0.97 expected goals per 60, the highest rate among these four, sitting at 18 goals on 13.1% shooting. Brad Marchand, at 0.93 xG/60, has posted 17 goals on a 19.5% shooting rate—an outlier that will regress. Marchand has three high-danger goals to Bennett's six. Both are generating elite-level chances and finishing at elite rates, the inverse profile of Detroit's pair.

The underlying play is virtually identical. Both teams are league-average at shot generation. Detroit's points pace is marginally better, but goal differential on both sides tells the real story: neither is outplaying its tally. Florida's territorial edge—52% Corsi—should matter more in a league dominated by expected goals, but not enough to break the tie.

This is a genuine coin flip because it truly is one. Pick your signal: Detroit's recent form, or Florida's structural volume edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 52%
52%
FLA
Model favorite
48%
52%
DET50FLA

FLA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DET 2.5–2.6 FLA; 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
DET← edge
edge →FLA
49.0%49.0%
49.0%52.0%
2.382.48
2.502.56
1.731.98
2.072.21
0.9850.989

FLA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.989) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DET
4-4-2
-7 GD · 2d rest
FLA
3-7-0
-9 GD · 3d rest
0.985
DET PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Red Wings are the hotter team by points pace (4-4-2 in their last 10).
  • The Panthers are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
DET
Expected in goal
J. Gibson
2 days rest1.000 last start
Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

FLA
Expected in goal
S. Bobrovsky
3 days rest.966 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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
DET
Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
Marco Kasper7G 8A
0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next