Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Thu, Mar 12 · the slate
Breakdown · DET at TBL

Lightning pull away from the Red Wings

FinalThu, Mar 12
DETDetroit Red Wings1TBLTampa Bay Lightning4
The verdict · earned

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

DET 1 · TBL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:49 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

Detroit's high-danger chances were nearly even with Tampa Bay's—seven to six—yet the Red Wings scored only once and lost 4-1. The Red Wings underperformed their 2.95 expected goals by 1.95, a chasm largely explained by going 0/7 on their most dangerous opportunities.

The underlying dominance belonged to Tampa Bay: 60% of 5v5 expected goals (4.39–2.95), 54% of shot attempts (29–25). The Lightning converted efficiently. N. Kucherov and B. Point each added two assists, and G. Goncalves scored twice to drive the separation.

A. Vasilevskiy made the difference. He stopped 24 of 25 shots for a 0.960 save percentage, 1.95 goals better than expected. On high-danger chances, Vasilevskiy was perfect: 7-for-7. J. Gibson (DET) managed a respectable 0.893 save percentage (25/28 saves, +1.39 vs expected), but his effort couldn't overcome the inefficiency in front of him.

The turning point came at 16:55: Jake Guentzel's wrist shot from the point put Tampa Bay ahead. The Lightning capitalized on rush chances—three goals on 32 rush attempts.

This was less about Tampa Bay's excellence and more about Detroit's execution failure. Seven high-danger chances and zero goals is an outlier outcome; it won't repeat. Tonight, it cost the Red Wings.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 12
DET
1
TBL
4

Lightning pull away from the Red Wings

Chances 3.0 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
2.95
TBL
4.39
40% of the chances60%

The board read DET 1, TBL 4. The chances read DET 3.0, TBL 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−0.4
goals above expected
TBL4.39 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
DET2.95 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Red Wings left 1.9 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 00:49TBLJ. GuentzelPP0–1
  2. P3 01:35TBLG. Goncalves0–2
  3. P3 07:05DETJ. Compher1–2
  4. P3 16:22TBLG. Goncalves1–3
  5. P3 16:55TBLJ. GuentzelEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
42 shots
1
Final
91 shots
TBL
49 shots
4
DET attackTBL attack
DET TBL Goal
42
shots · 1 in
49
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETTBL
0 / 7
1.52 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.62 xG
0 / 9
0.92 xG
Medium
3 / 20
2.15 xG
1 / 40
0.51 xG
Low
0 / 46
0.62 xG

The Red Wings went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.9
TBL · 24/25
B+
J. Gibson
+1.4
DET · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning pull away from 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 5–9no goals
    2ndshots 13–10
    1. 00:49TBLJ. Guentzelpower play(N. Kucherov, C. Perry)0–1
    3rdshots 7–10
    1. 01:35TBLG. Goncalves(B. Point)0–2
    2. 07:05DETJ. Compher(A. DeBrincat, P. Kane)1–2
    3. 16:22TBLG. Goncalves(B. Point, N. Kucherov)1–3
    4. 16:55TBLJ. Guentzelempty net(A. Cirelli)1–4

    score reads DET–TBL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.39
    TBL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.4
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.038
    TBL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    56.2%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.95Expected goals4.39
    TBL 60% of the chance quality
    25Shots on goal29
    7High-danger chances6
    56All attempts (Corsi)72
    Adjusted for score: DET 47% · TBL 53%
    Faceoffs · TBL won50%off54%neu46%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    DET0 / 7 · 1.52 xG
    TBL1 / 6 · 1.62 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    DET0 / 9 · 0.92 xG
    TBL3 / 20 · 2.15 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    DET1 / 40 · 0.51 xG
    TBL0 / 46 · 0.62 xG

    DET went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.52 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    DET
    1 G · 2.95 xG · -1.9
    TBL
    4 G · 4.39 xG · -0.4
    012345

    DET finished -1.9 against expected, TBL -0.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    DET
    SNAP0/26
    WRIST0/2
    TIP IN1/8
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/14
    TBL
    SNAP1/11
    WRIST1/18
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP0/9
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED2/3
    OTHER0/23
    DET
    TBL
    Off the rush
    1 G on 26
    1.97 xG
    3 G on 32
    2.86 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.33 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.45 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: DET went 0-for-26, TBL 1-for-11. TBL 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 · 25/28 · .893
    +1.4
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.6+0.6
    Medium3/202.1-0.8
    Low0/460.6+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. Vasilevskiy
    TBL · 24/25 · .960
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/71.5+1.5
    Medium0/90.9+0.9
    Low1/400.5-0.5

    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

    91 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    DET
    42 shots
    1
    Final
    91 shots
    TBL
    49 shots
    4
    DET attackTBL attack
    DET TBL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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
    G. Goncalves
    #93 · C · TBL
    2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 18:47 on ice · +2
    N. Kucherov
    #86 · R · TBL
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:33 on ice · +2
    B. Point
    #21 · C · TBL
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:13 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 12
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:48 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 2.3–2.7 game favoring Tampa Bay, with the Lightning at 57% win probability. That edge rests on superior underlying play that Detroit cannot match on paper.

    Both teams are treading water lately. The Lightning sit at -5 goal differential over their last 10 games; the Red Wings are at -7. Neither is clicking. But the season's 5v5 metrics belong to Tampa Bay. The Lightning own 54.0% xG and 53.0% Corsi—measures of territorial control and scoring chance volume. Detroit manages only 49.0% on both. That five-point gap is substantial.

    Here lies the catch: Tampa Bay's 1.019 PDO suggests fortune has smiled on the Lightning. Regression looms. Detroit's 0.985 PDO cuts the other way, implying the Red Wings have underperformed their underlying game. The model's edge is real but fragile.

    Execution matters more than projections. Alex DeBrincat generates 0.88 xG per 60 while converting at 9.0%, yielding 17 goals. Marco Kasper adds 0.81 xG/60 with 7 goals on a 6.1% shooting rate. Good numbers, but neither closes Detroit's underlying gap.

    Brandon Hagel drives Tampa's advantage. At 1.10 xG per 60 and 15.8% shooting, he is both generating and finishing at a volume Detroit cannot match. Anthony Cirelli mirrors the pattern at 0.95 xG/60 and 17.0% shooting, with 5 high-danger goals. These two are why the model leans Lightning.

    The underlying game is slight. Tampa's PDO edge could vanish any night. But for now, the Lightning own the expected-goals margin.

    Players to Watch

    • Brandon Hagel, Tampa Bay — 1.10 xG/60, 23G 26A, 2 HD goals, 15.8% shooting
    • Alex DeBrincat, Detroit — 0.88 xG/60, 17G 28A, 2 HD goals, 9.0% shooting
    • Anthony Cirelli, Tampa Bay — 0.95 xG/60, 15G 18A, 5 HD goals, 17.0% shooting
    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 57%
    57%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    DET50TBL

    TBL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.3–2.7 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
    DET← edge
    edge →TBL
    49.0%54.0%
    49.0%53.0%
    2.382.67
    2.502.28
    1.732.38
    2.071.85
    0.9851.019

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 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
    DET
    4-5-1
    -7 GD · 2d rest
    TBL
    4-6-0
    -5 GD · 2d rest
    0.985
    DET PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.019
    TBL 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 49.0%.
    • 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 49.0%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Lightning are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Red Wings are underwater at -7 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
    DET
    Expected in goal
    J. Gibson
    2 days rest.857 last start
    Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    TBL
    Expected in goal
    A. Vasilevskiy
    2 days rest.871 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
    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
    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