Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
Breakdown · TBL at SEA

Lightning run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 6 · SEA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:42 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

Tampa Bay's 6-2 victory involved substantially better finishing than the underlying metrics alone would suggest — they outscored their expected goals by 2.80, a gap that speaks to either elite execution or favorable fortune, likely both. Still, the underlying numbers remain decidedly in their favor: they controlled 64% of 5v5 expected goals (3.20–1.79) and utterly dominated high-danger areas, five clear chances to Seattle's one.

The Kraken's structural disadvantage started at puck drop. They held just 41% of shot attempts and mustered exactly one high-danger chance. Their goaltender, Philipp Grubauer, surrendered 1.80 more goals than the shot quality warranted, finishing at 0.800 save percentage. Andrei Vasilevskiy, meanwhile, settled at 0.889 while commanding the crease.

The conversion gap proved decisive. Tampa finished four of five high-danger chances (80%), a clinical rate reflecting sustained offensive pressure. Seattle responded with pace, scoring twice on 17 rush attempts, but was overwhelmed by Tampa's six goals on 26 transitions — a rush game built on relentless volume.

Nikita Kucherov's wrist shot from the high slot in the third period crystallized the Lightning's dominance, but the game was settled long before. Seattle lacked the puck, lacked the chances, and lacked any realistic avenue to victory once the opening faceoff concluded.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 17
TBL
6
SEA
2

Lightning run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.2 – 1.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.20
SEA
1.79
64% of the chances36%

The board read TBL 6, SEA 2. The chances read TBL 3.2, SEA 1.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+2.8
goals above expected
TBL3.20 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
SEA1.79 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Lightning scored 2.8 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:45TBLG. Goncalves1–0
  2. P1 18:49TBLN. Kucherov2–0
  3. P2 00:57TBLN. Kucherov3–0
  4. P2 01:07SEAB. McMann3–1
  5. P2 09:46SEAJ. McCann3–2
  6. P3 04:35TBLA. Cirelli4–2
  7. P3 16:54TBLB. HagelPP5–2
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
39 shots
6
Final
68 shots
SEA
29 shots
2
TBL attackSEA attack
TBL SEA Goal
39
shots · 6 in
29
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLSEA
4 / 5
1.69 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.30 xG
2 / 10
0.96 xG
Medium
2 / 10
0.99 xG
0 / 48
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 25
0.51 xG

The Lightning buried 4 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
A. Vasilevskiy
−0.2
TBL · 16/18
F
P. Grubauer
−1.8
SEA · 20/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Kraken 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
  1. 05:45TBLG. Goncalves(B. Point, J. Guentzel)1–0
  2. 18:49TBLN. Kucherov(B. Hagel)2–0
2ndshots 6–9
  1. 00:57TBLN. Kucherov(A. Cirelli, B. Hagel)3–0
  2. 01:07SEAB. McMann(M. Beniers)3–1
  3. 09:46SEAJ. McCann(J. Eberle, P. Grubauer)3–2
3rdshots 11–5
  1. 04:35TBLA. Cirelli(N. Kucherov, B. Hagel)4–2
  2. 16:54TBLB. Hagelpower play(G. Goncalves, N. Kucherov)5–2
  3. 17:16TBLN. Kucherovempty net(A. Cirelli)6–2

score reads TBL–SEA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.20
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.040
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
63.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.20Expected goals1.79
TBL 64% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal18
5High-danger chances1
63All attempts (Corsi)36
Adjusted for score: TBL 59% · SEA 42%
Faceoffs · SEA won56%off31%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL4 / 5 · 1.69 xG
SEA0 / 1 · 0.30 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL2 / 10 · 0.96 xG
SEA2 / 10 · 0.99 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL0 / 48 · 0.56 xG
SEA0 / 25 · 0.51 xG

TBL went 4-for-5 from high danger on 1.69 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
6 G · 3.20 xG · +2.8
SEA
2 G · 1.79 xG · +0.2
01234567

TBL finished +2.8 against expected, SEA +0.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
WRIST4/19
SNAP1/7
SLAP0/6
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/24
SEA
WRIST2/16
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/7
TBL
SEA
Off the rush
6 G on 26
2.93 xG
2 G on 17
1.08 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 1
0.03 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 4-for-19, SEA 2-for-16. TBL scored 6 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
A. Vasilevskiy
TBL · 16/18 · .889
-0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.3+0.3
Medium2/101.0-1.0
Low0/250.5+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

P. Grubauer
SEA · 20/25 · .800
-1.8
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/51.7-2.3
Medium2/101.0-1.0
Low0/480.6+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

68 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
39 shots
6
Final
68 shots
SEA
29 shots
2
TBL attackSEA attack
TBL SEA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, SEA 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
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
3 G · 2 A · 7 SOG · 19:49 on ice · +3
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
1 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 17:21 on ice · +3
A. Cirelli
#71 · C · TBL
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 15:48 on ice · +2
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, 7:38 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 2.6–2.3 game favoring Tampa Bay, with the Lightning at 55% win probability. This is essentially a coin flip. Both teams are underwater recently: Seattle sits at minus-5 goal differential over their last 10 games, and Tampa Bay is minus-10. Yet the underlying numbers offer clarity.

The Lightning control the underlying play decisively. They own 54.0% expected goals to the Kraken's 46.0%, drive territorial advantage at 53.0% Corsi over 45.0%, and sustain this across situations. Their PDO of 1.019 signals they're running hot—expect regression, which matters in a matchup this tight.

Rest nominally favors Seattle, arriving on one day against Tampa Bay's three. But J. Daccord will be on a back-to-back, risking a backup start that blunts the advantage. The Lightning's underlying edge makes them slight favorites despite recent struggles, but not enough to be certain.

Brandon Hagel drives Tampa's offense at 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes, collecting 23 goals and 26 assists with two high-danger goals on 15.8% shooting. Anthony Cirelli adds 0.95 xG/60, 15 goals, 18 assists, and five high-danger goals on 17.0% shooting. Seattle counters with Shane Wright at 0.77 xG/60 (8 goals, 10 assists, 4 high-danger goals) and Berkly Catton at 0.68 xG/60 (6 goals, 8 assists, 5 high-danger goals on 8.8%). Victor Hedman is Tampa's defensive weak link; Chandler Stephenson carries that role for Seattle.

The play is Tampa's to lose if underlying numbers translate. Seattle can steal this on rest and goaltender fortune, but the edge to squander remains the Lightning's.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 55%
55%
TBL
Model favorite
55%
45%
TBL50SEA

TBL by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.3 SEA; 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
TBL← edge
edge →SEA
54.0%46.0%
53.0%45.0%
2.672.13
2.282.51
2.381.87
1.851.95
1.0191.011

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.011) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TBL
3-7-0
-10 GD · 3d rest
SEA
4-6-0
-5 GD · 1d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.011
SEA 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 46.0%.
  • 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 46.0%.
  • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Daccord is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Kraken are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Lightning are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Lightning have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TBL
Expected in goal
A. Vasilevskiy
3 days rest.912 last start
Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

SEA
Expected in goal
J. Daccord
back-to-back.920 last start
Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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.

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
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
SEA
Shane Wright8G 10A
0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
Berkly Catton6G 8A
0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next