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

S. Bobrovsky stands tall as the Panthers edge the Blue Jackets

The verdict · stolen

The Panthers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.01–3.49 and won anyway.

CBJ 1 · FLA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:48 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 Blue Jackets built a superior shot profile and lost anyway. Columbus posted 4.01 expected goals to Florida's 3.49, held equal high-danger chances at 7 apiece, yet coughed up the game to S. Bobrovsky's wall.

The goaltending split told the story. S. Bobrovsky (FLA) stopped 30 of 31 shots for a 0.968 save percentage, exceeding his model by 3.01 goals—the sort of performance that flips close games. E. Merzlikins (CBJ) posted 19 of 21 for 0.905, which would be respectable had the margin not swung on Bobrovsky's dominance. Against high-danger chances, Bobrovsky was perfect: 7 for 7, while Merzlikins faced identical volume yet surrendered two.

Columbus wasted its offensive advantage through concrete numbers. The Blue Jackets underperformed their xG by 3.0, failing to score on 7 high-danger opportunities—a conversion rate that won't recur. Florida's power play, conversely, punished efficiency: 2 goals on 10 shots (1.28 xG), while Columbus generated zero goals from 4 rebound chances.

The Panthers controlled just 40% of shot attempts (21–31), yet Florida's execution overwhelmed Columbus's volume advantage. S. Reinhart's wrist shot from a sharp angle at 02:20 of OT sealed the outcome, capping a 1G–1A performance in 17:52.

The Three Stars:

  • #13 S. Reinhart (FLA) — 1G, 1A in 17:52
  • #17 M. Marchment (CBJ) — 1A in 20:19
  • #19 A. Fantilli (CBJ) — 1G in 19:31
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 12
CBJ
1
FLA
2

S. Bobrovsky stands tall as the Panthers edge the Blue Jackets

Chances 4.0 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
4.01
FLA
3.49
53% of the chances47%

The board read CBJ 1, FLA 2. The chances read CBJ 4.0, FLA 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
−1.5
goals above expected
FLA3.49 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ4.01 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blue Jackets left 3.0 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 13:01CBJA. Fantilli1–0
  2. P3 01:28FLAS. BennettPP1–1
  3. OT 02:20FLAS. ReinhartPP1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
42 shots
1
Final
87 shots
FLA
45 shots
2
CBJ attackFLA attack
CBJ FLA Goal
42
shots · 1 in
45
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJFLA
0 / 7
1.95 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.88 xG
1 / 15
1.52 xG
Medium
1 / 10
0.99 xG
0 / 37
0.54 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.63 xG

The Blue Jackets went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Bobrovsky
+3.0
FLA · 30/31
B+
E. Merzlikins
+1.5
CBJ · 19/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

S. Bobrovsky stands tall as the Panthers edge the Blue Jackets

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 14–3no goals
    2ndshots 10–7
    1. 13:01CBJA. Fantilli(M. Marchment)1–0
    3rdshots 7–6
    1. 01:28FLAS. Bennettpower play(S. Reinhart, M. Samoskevich)1–1
    OTshots 0–5
    1. 02:20FLAS. Reinhartpower play(M. Tkachuk, M. Benning)1–2

    score reads CBJ–FLA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.49
    FLA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.018
    FLA puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    49.1%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.01Expected goals3.49
    CBJ 53% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal21
    7High-danger chances7
    59All attempts (Corsi)57
    Adjusted for score: CBJ 50% · FLA 50%
    Faceoffs · FLA won42%off33%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CBJ0 / 7 · 1.95 xG
    FLA1 / 7 · 1.88 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CBJ1 / 15 · 1.52 xG
    FLA1 / 10 · 0.99 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CBJ0 / 37 · 0.54 xG
    FLA0 / 40 · 0.63 xG

    CBJ went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.95 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CBJ
    1 G · 4.01 xG · -3.0
    FLA
    2 G · 3.49 xG · -1.5
    012345

    CBJ finished -3.0 against expected, FLA -1.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CBJ
    SNAP0/28
    WRIST1/3
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND0/4
    SLAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/17
    FLA
    SNAP1/25
    WRIST1/5
    TIP IN0/5
    BACKHAND0/4
    SLAP0/4
    DEFLECTED0/2
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/12
    CBJ
    FLA
    Off the rush
    1 G on 28
    2.63 xG
    1 G on 25
    2.60 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.66 xG
    1 G on 4
    0.59 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: CBJ went 0-for-28, FLA 1-for-25.

    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 · 19/21 · .905
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.9+0.9
    Medium1/101.0-0.0
    Low0/400.6+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

    S. Bobrovsky
    FLA · 30/31 · .968
    +3.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/71.9+1.9
    Medium1/151.5+0.5
    Low0/370.5+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

    87 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CBJ
    42 shots
    1
    Final
    87 shots
    FLA
    45 shots
    2
    CBJ attackFLA attack
    CBJ FLA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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
    S. Reinhart
    #13 · C · FLA
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:52 on ice
    M. Marchment
    #17 · L · CBJ
    0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:19 on ice · +1
    A. Fantilli
    #19 · C · CBJ
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 19:31 on ice · +1
    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, 6:46 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 sees this as pick'em territory: a projected 2.6–2.6 game with Columbus at exactly 50% win probability. The analytics are split accordingly.

    Columbus owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Blue Jackets generate 52.0% expected goals to Florida's 49.0%, a meaningful edge in shot quality. But the Panthers counter with 52.0% Corsi share, suggesting they control possession. That split—stronger shots for CBJ, more volume for FLA—explains why this feels like a genuine coin flip rather than a clear favorite.

    Recent form tips toward Columbus. The Blue Jackets have gone 6-1-3 in their last ten, compiling points at a pace that suggests sustained play rather than variance. Florida sits at -7 goal differential over the same span—submarine territory. One team is trending up; the other is treading water. Yet the models still refuse to break for either side, which means Florida's underlying structure—that 52.0% Corsi, that 0.989 PDO—leaves room for mean reversion.

    Where the goals come from will matter more than possession counts. Boone Jenner generates 0.98 expected goals per 60 at 5v5 with 11 goals and 21 assists on the season; his 9.6% shooting suggests room for regression, but his 2 high-danger goals indicate he's getting dangerous looks. Mathieu Olivier operates lower at 0.89 xG/60 but shoots 13.3%, well above league average, supporting 12 goals in a bottom-six role.

    Florida counters with Sam Bennett at 0.97 xG/60, nearly Jenner's rate, and Bennett has 18 goals to show for it with 6 high-danger tallies. Brad Marchand rounds out the watch list at 0.93 xG/60 and a blistering 19.5% shooting mark, though that efficiency can't sustain. The Panthers have talented shot-makers. They've just stopped finishing at the rate their underlying metrics suggest they should.

    Both teams show 0% rates on high-danger and rebound goals—either a data anomaly or a sign neither has figured out the dirty-area game. Columbus flags Conor Garland as a defensive liability; Florida's weakness circles back to Marchand, whose offensive production masks a vulnerability in transition defense.

    The Corsi split, the xG split, the goal differential—none of it screams dominance. Columbus has the slight edge in shot quality and recent form. Florida has the slight edge in possession and, with PDO at 0.989, has room to regress favorably. That's why the model calls it 50-50.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    CBJ 50%
    50%
    CBJ
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    CBJ50FLA

    CBJ by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.6–2.6 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
    CBJ← edge
    edge →FLA
    52.0%49.0%
    51.0%52.0%
    2.632.48
    2.432.56
    2.121.98
    1.982.21
    1.0030.989

    CBJ holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.989) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    CBJ
    6-1-3
    +9 GD · 2d rest
    FLA
    4-6-0
    -7 GD · 2d rest
    1.003
    CBJ 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 Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • The Blue Jackets are the hotter team by points pace (6-1-3 in their last 10).
    • The Panthers are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CBJ
    Expected in goal
    E. Merzlikins
    2 days rest.889 last start
    Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    FLA
    Expected in goal
    D. Tarasov
    2 days rest.893 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
    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
    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