Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · TBL at VAN

Lightning run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Mar 19

TBLTampa Bay Lightning6 VANVancouver Canucks2

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 6 · VAN 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:58 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 over Vancouver was inflated by a 2.49-goal margin from expected outcomes. The Lightning controlled 63% of 5v5 expected goals (3.51–2.05), a true advantage that ballooned into four goals through elite finishing and K. Lankinen's underperformance.

The quality gap was real. Tampa took 31 shots to Vancouver's 21 and generated 0.063 xG per attempt versus the Canucks' 0.041. High-danger chances went 7–1 in the Lightning's favor, a dominance reflected in the underlying metrics. But Tampa finished at an unsustainable rate while Lankinen (25/31, 0.806 SV%) surrendered nearly 2.5 goals against expectation. A. Vasilevskiy (19/21, 0.905 SV%) stayed sharp.

Vancouver couldn't generate offense. They held 40% of shot attempts yet produced only 2.05 xG—a gap rooted in shot quality. They created one high-danger chance and mounted zero rush threat while Tampa stormed the ice: five goals on 24 rush attempts. The Lightning also crashed the net relentlessly, generating five rebound opportunities, though converting none of them. That aggression elsewhere didn't require them.

Brandon Hagel's snap shot from a sharp angle at 10:35 of the third punctuated the rout. By that point, the outcome had been decided by a team that executed superior hockey against an overmatched opponent.

The three stars captured Tampa's depth:

A. Cirelli (1G, 2A, 17:57)
N. Kucherov (1G, 2A, 16:10)
D. Raddysh (1G, 1A, 24:50)

Final: TBL 6 – VAN 2

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 19

TBL

VAN

Lightning run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.5 – 2.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TBL

3.51

VAN

2.05

63% of the chances37%

The board read TBL 6, VAN 2. The chances read TBL 3.5, VAN 2.0.

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

Luck check

TBL

+2.5

goals above expected

TBL3.51 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN2.05 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Lightning scored 2.5 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 17:37TBLJ. Guentzel1–0
P2 00:49TBLD. Raddysh2–0
P2 04:16TBLY. Gourde3–0
P2 05:31TBLN. Kucherov4–0
P2 12:06VANL. Ohgren4–1
P3 07:04VANL. Karlsson4–2
P3 07:36TBLA. Cirelli5–2

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

TBL

47 shots

Final

83 shots

VAN

36 shots

TBL VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TBLVAN

1 / 7

1.47 xG

High danger

0 / 1

0.26 xG

3 / 13

1.32 xG

Medium

1 / 12

1.25 xG

2 / 36

0.72 xG

Low

1 / 37

0.55 xG

High-danger looks: TBL 1 of 7, VAN 0 of 1.

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

In the net

A. Vasilevskiy

+0.1

TBL · 19/21

K. Lankinen

−2.5

VAN · 25/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Canucks 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 11–6

17:37TBLJ. Guentzel(C. D'Astous, R. McDonagh)1–0

2ndshots 11–4

00:49TBLD. Raddysh(N. Kucherov, A. Cirelli)2–0
04:16TBLY. Gourde(D. Raddysh, P. Holmberg)3–0
05:31TBLN. Kucherov(E. Cernak, A. Cirelli)4–0
12:06VANL. Ohgren(B. Boeser, M. Rossi)4–1

3rdshots 9–11

07:04VANL. Karlsson(M. Rossi)4–2
07:36TBLA. Cirelli(B. Hagel, E. Cernak)5–2
10:35TBLB. Hagel(N. Kucherov, J. Moser)6–2

score reads TBL–VAN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.51

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.067

TBL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

52.8%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.51Expected goals2.05

TBL 63% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal21

7High-danger chances1

56All attempts (Corsi)50

Adjusted for score: TBL 48% · VAN 52%

Faceoffs · VAN won48%off57%neu41%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TBL1 / 7 · 1.47 xG

VAN0 / 1 · 0.26 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TBL3 / 13 · 1.32 xG

VAN1 / 12 · 1.25 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TBL2 / 36 · 0.72 xG

VAN1 / 37 · 0.55 xG

TBL went 3-for-13 from medium danger on 1.32 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TBL

6 G · 3.51 xG · +2.5

VAN

2 G · 2.05 xG · -0.1

01234567

TBL finished +2.5 against expected, VAN -0.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TBL

WRIST1/13

SLAP1/14

SNAP1/7

TIP IN2/7

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED1/2

BAT0/1

OTHER0/9

VAN

WRIST1/9

SLAP0/5

SNAP0/12

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT1/1

OTHER0/14

TBL

VAN

Off the rush

5 G on 24

2.11 xG

1 G on 20

1.42 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5

0.56 xG

1 G on 1

0.16 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 1-for-13, VAN 1-for-9. TBL 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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 19/21 · .905

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.3+0.3

Medium1/121.3+0.3

Low1/370.6-0.5

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 · 25/31 · .806

-2.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.5+0.5

Medium3/131.3-1.7

Low2/360.7-1.3

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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TBL

47 shots

Final

83 shots

VAN

36 shots

TBL VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL 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

A. Cirelli

#71 · C · TBL

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:57 on ice · +3

N. Kucherov

#86 · R · TBL

1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:10 on ice · +4

D. Raddysh

#43 · D · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 24:50 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Mar 19

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:56 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

Tampa Bay's underlying play is superior to Vancouver's, and the model reflects it: a 2.7–2.4 Lightning victory with 56% win probability. The edge exists in the work, not the scoreboard.

Start with 5v5 shot quality. The Lightning generate 54.0% expected goals to the Canucks' 44.0%—a nine-percentage-point gap that persists across possessions. Territorial control follows the same line: Tampa maintains 53.0% Corsi, pushing play where it matters. Vancouver owns neither the puck nor the probability.

Both teams are underwater in their last 10 games. Tampa is -8 in goal differential; Vancouver is -11. Difference enough that it signals execution, not noise—and this matters for regression.

Here's where PDO enters. Vancouver runs 0.974 PDO, running cold on both ends. That's a statistical floor, typically, and they're due for positive regression simply by returning to average luck. Tampa runs 1.019 PDO, running hot. Expect some regression in the other direction. The model prices both in.

Goaltending adds friction. K. Lankinen and A. Vasilevskiy both face back-to-back starts. Monitor both situations: one side may insert a fresh backup, or lean on a fatigued starter. That variable alone can narrow the Lightning's edge.

At the skater level, Brandon Hagel drives the Lightning at 1.10 xG/60 and carries 23 goals and 26 assists. He owns 2 high-danger goals and shoots at 15.8%—elevated but not unsustainable. Anthony Cirelli amplifies the concern: 0.95 xG/60, 15 goals, 17.0% shooting. Vancouver has to limit both or accept they'll lose the shadow play.

Filip Chytil (1.03 xG/60, 3 goals, 15.0% shooting) is a liabilities question. He hasn't played in 45 days and is tracking as injured or IR-bound. Without him, Vancouver loses a mid-tier offensive generator. Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13 goals, 11.8% shooting) steps in, but carries a lighter xG load.

On defense, Victor Hedman is Tampa's weak link; Victor Mancini carries the same for Vancouver. Neither team built a perimeter firewall, so both will leak chances if their forwards don't press the puck.

The model's lean is clean: Tampa's 54.0% xG advantage, combined with a Corsi edge and Vancouver's regression-due-north PDO profile, stacks the leverage. Chytil's absence narrows the Canucks' margin further. Back-to-back fatigue adds noise, but not enough to erase the underlying tilt.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 56%

56%

TBL

Model favorite

56%

44%

TBL50VAN

TBL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.7–2.4 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

TBL← edge

edge →VAN

54.0%44.0%

53.0%46.0%

2.672.22

2.282.81

2.381.60

1.852.56

1.0190.974

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.974) 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

-8 GD · 1d rest

VAN

3-5-2

-11 GD · 1d rest

1.019

TBL 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 Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
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 44.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Vasilevskiy is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Canucks are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
The Lightning are underwater at -8 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

TBL

Expected in goal

A. Vasilevskiy

back-to-back.889 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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

K. Lankinen

back-to-back.913 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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

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