Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater

Breakdown · FLA at VAN

K. Lankinen stands tall as the Canucks edge the Panthers

FinalTue, Mar 17

FLAFlorida Panthers2 VANVancouver Canucks5

The verdict · stolen

The Canucks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 5.15–2.80 and won anyway.

FLA 2 · VAN 5

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:39 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

Vancouver's 5–2 win contradicts the underlying play: the Canucks were out-xGed 2.80 to 5.15 but won decisively. The Panthers controlled 65% of 5v5 expected goals—they were the better team by every metric except the score. K. Lankinen was the difference.

Lankinen saved 3.15 goals above expected on 21 of 23 shots (0.913 SV%). S. Bobrovsky allowed 2.20 more than expected. Vancouver's advantage came elsewhere: two power-play goals on 0.75 expected goals and five goals on 25 rush chances inflated the scoreline. That efficiency rate turned a close game into a blowout.

High-danger chances split 11–5 to Florida. Vancouver finished at 60% on their dangerous looks—the kind of conversion that decides close contests. Drew O'Connor's snap shot from the doorstep (P3, 14:25) was the game's critical moment.

Florida's execution fell short in the moments that mattered. Vancouver didn't miss.

Final: FLA 2 – VAN 5

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 17

FLA

VAN

K. Lankinen stands tall as the Canucks edge the Panthers

Chances 5.2 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

5.15

VAN

2.80

65% of the chances35%

The board read FLA 2, VAN 5. The chances read FLA 5.2, VAN 2.8.

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

Luck check

VAN

+2.2

goals above expected

VAN2.80 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

FLA5.15 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Canucks scored 2.2 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 03:49VANE. PetterssonPP0–1
P1 11:41FLAM. Tkachuk1–1
P1 13:40VANE. PetterssonPP1–2
P1 17:46VANM. Rossi1–3
P2 11:28FLAS. Bennett2–3
P2 14:27VANA. Räty2–4
P3 14:25VAND. O'Connor2–5

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

Where the shots came from

FLA

50 shots

Final

81 shots

VAN

31 shots

FLA VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLAVAN

2 / 11

2.76 xG

High danger

3 / 5

1.19 xG

0 / 19

1.89 xG

Medium

1 / 10

1.08 xG

0 / 32

0.51 xG

Low

1 / 27

0.53 xG

The Canucks buried 3 of 5 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A+

K. Lankinen

+3.1

VAN · 21/23

S. Bobrovsky

−2.2

FLA · 17/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

K. Lankinen stands tall as the Canucks edge the Panthers

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 7–10

03:49VANE. Petterssonpower play(M. Rossi, B. Boeser)0–1
11:41FLAM. Tkachuk(C. Verhaeghe)1–1
13:40VANE. Petterssonpower play(B. Boeser, M. Rossi)1–2
17:46VANM. Rossi(B. Boeser, L. Ohgren)1–3

2ndshots 7–5

11:28FLAS. Bennett(M. Tkachuk, C. Verhaeghe)2–3
14:27VANA. Räty(E. Kane, E. Pettersson)2–4

3rdshots 9–7

14:25VAND. O'Connor(L. Karlsson, T. Willander)2–5

score reads FLA–VAN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.80

VAN chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.087

VAN puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

40.4%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.15Expected goals2.80

FLA 65% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal22

11High-danger chances5

62All attempts (Corsi)42

Adjusted for score: FLA 65% · VAN 35%

Faceoffs · VAN won67%off69%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA2 / 11 · 2.76 xG

VAN3 / 5 · 1.19 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA0 / 19 · 1.89 xG

VAN1 / 10 · 1.08 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA0 / 32 · 0.51 xG

VAN1 / 27 · 0.53 xG

FLA went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 1.89 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

2 G · 5.15 xG · -3.1

VAN

5 G · 2.80 xG · +2.2

0123456

FLA finished -3.1 against expected, VAN +2.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

SNAP0/34

WRIST2/4

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/5

SLAP0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/12

VAN

SNAP3/9

WRIST1/15

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/1

SLAP1/2

BAT0/0

OTHER0/11

FLA

VAN

Off the rush

1 G on 30

3.00 xG

5 G on 25

2.51 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 6

1.04 xG

0 G on 1

0.18 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-34, VAN 3-for-9. VAN scored 5 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

S. Bobrovsky

FLA · 17/22 · .773

-2.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/51.2-1.8

Medium1/101.1+0.1

Low1/270.5-0.5

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

K. Lankinen

VAN · 21/23 · .913

+3.1

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/112.8+0.8

Medium0/191.9+1.9

Low0/320.5+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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

50 shots

Final

81 shots

VAN

31 shots

FLA VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, VAN 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

B. Boeser

#6 · R · VAN

0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 17:33 on ice · +1

M. Rossi

#93 · C · VAN

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:59 on ice · +1

M. Tkachuk

#19 · L · FLA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:18 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 17

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:37 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

Florida and Vancouver are separated by a hair—the model projects a 2.6–2.5 game with the Panthers at 52% win probability, as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Both teams are limping. The Canucks sit -17 in goal differential over their last 10 games; the Panthers are -9. Florida's stumble is less severe, an edge when margins are this tight.

The Panthers own the underlying play. At 49.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi, they're generating territorial dominance that should eventually translate to output. Vancouver counters with 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi, quieter numbers reflecting offensive struggle. These gaps aren't incidental—they suggest Florida is running more plays in dangerous areas.

But Vancouver carries a regression candidate's calling card. The Canucks' PDO sits at 0.974, lowest in this matchup, compared to Florida's 0.989. That gap means Vancouver is running cold by luck, not entirely by design, and a bounce is due.

D. Tarasov faces a back-to-back for Florida, a detail that could affect consistency in net.

Injuries reshape the equation. Brad Marchand (19.5% shooting, 0.93 xG/60) hasn't played in 11 days and is likely out. More critically, Filip Chytil (1.03 xG/60, 3G this season) hasn't suited up in 43 days and is likely unavailable. Chytil's absence is particularly costly—he's Vancouver's most efficient offensive threat.

That leaves Florida's depth comparatively healthy. Sam Bennett (18G 19A, 0.97 xG/60, 13.1% shooting) remains a functional first-line presence. Drew O'Connor (13G 11A, 0.85 xG/60, 11.8% shooting) carries Vancouver's offensive load in Chytil's void—a step down in efficiency.

The underlying advantage runs to Florida, but a night where Vancouver's colder luck reverses and absence-related gaps narrow would flip this in moments. That's why 52% exists: there's real money on both sides.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 52%

52%

FLA

Model favorite

52%

48%

FLA50VAN

FLA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 2.6–2.5 VAN; 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

FLA← edge

edge →VAN

49.0%44.0%

52.0%46.0%

2.482.22

2.562.81

1.981.60

2.212.56

0.9890.974

FLA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 0.974) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

FLA

4-6-0

-9 GD · 1d rest

VAN

2-6-2

-17 GD · 2d rest

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.974

VAN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Panthers own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Panthers own the underlying play — 49.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
D. Tarasov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Canucks are underwater at -17 goal differential over their last 10.
The Panthers are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

FLA

Expected in goal

D. Tarasov

back-to-back.760 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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.

VAN

Expected in goal

N. Tolopilo

2 days rest.848 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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

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

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page