Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Tue, Mar 24 · the slate
Breakdown · MIN at TBL

Lightning run the Wild off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Mar 24
MINMinnesota Wild3TBLTampa Bay Lightning6
The verdict · earned

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

MIN 3 · TBL 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:44 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 defeated Minnesota 6-3, yet the underlying numbers tell a tighter story: the Lightning controlled just 61% of expected goals (4.94–3.15), a gap that understates how close the match was in goal quality.

The Lightning's advantage rested on execution and goaltending. Vasilevskiy stopped 21 of 24 shots while Gustavsson posted an above-expected 0.833 save percentage (+0.94), betraying Minnesota's stronger shot quality. Tampa still found more dangerous ice: they converted 5 of 9 high-danger chances (56%), clinical finishing in the scoring area.

Rush play defined the margin. Tampa scored 4 times from 28 rush chances; Minnesota converted 2 of 22—nearly double the efficiency per chance. That disparity masked Minnesota's underlying play, where they generated looks the scoreboard didn't capture.

Power-play dominance arrived from both benches but with divergent stakes. Tampa finished 2 of 10 (0.62 xG); Minnesota matched that conversion (2 of 11, 0.78 xG) yet controlled slightly higher expected value. Tampa also crashed the net on rebound opportunities—6 created, 1 converted—a small number that compounds when the other team cycles out.

Pontus Holmberg's point shot (P3, 19:36) crystallized the turning point: a sequence where Tampa's structure yielded precisely the scoring chance the underlying metrics predicted.

D. Raddysh (1G, 2A, 23:48) led the charge. J. Guentzel (1G, 1A, 19:14) and B. Hagel (1G, 1A, 18:49) capitalized on the space their line created. The Lightning's three-goal margin was real, but the game underneath—closer, tighter, hinging on Minnesota's inability to finish—reveals that this was less a runaway and more a team that executed on a slight edge.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 24
MIN
3
TBL
6

Lightning run the Wild off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.1 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.15
TBL
4.94
39% of the chances61%

The board read MIN 3, TBL 6. The chances read MIN 3.1, TBL 4.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
+1.1
goals above expected
TBL4.94 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
MIN3.15 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:28MINM. ZuccarelloPP1–0
  2. P1 18:49MINB. FaberPP2–0
  3. P2 05:45TBLB. PointPP2–1
  4. P2 09:51MINV. Tarasenko3–1
  5. P2 12:27TBLJ. Guentzel3–2
  6. P2 15:19TBLD. RaddyshPP3–3
  7. P3 17:07TBLE. Cernak3–4
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
38 shots
3
Final
87 shots
TBL
49 shots
6
MIN attackTBL attack
MIN TBL Goal
38
shots · 3 in
49
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINTBL
0 / 4
0.98 xG
High danger
5 / 9
2.63 xG
2 / 13
1.59 xG
Medium
0 / 15
1.68 xG
1 / 33
0.58 xG
Low
1 / 45
0.63 xG

The Wild went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
F. Gustavsson
+0.9
MIN · 20/24
C
A. Vasilevskiy
+0.1
TBL · 21/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning run the Wild 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 10–11
  1. 02:28MINM. Zuccarellopower play(Q. Hughes, M. Boldy)1–0
  2. 18:49MINB. Faberpower play(V. Tarasenko, B. Brink)2–0
2ndshots 7–8
  1. 05:45TBLB. Pointpower play(B. Hagel, D. Raddysh)2–1
  2. 09:51MINV. Tarasenko(M. Johansson, R. Hartman)3–1
  3. 12:27TBLJ. Guentzel(D. Raddysh, G. Goncalves)3–2
  4. 15:19TBLD. Raddyshpower play(N. Kucherov, J. Guentzel)3–3
3rdshots 7–7
  1. 17:07TBLE. Cernak(C. D'Astous, A. Vasilevskiy)3–4
  2. 18:42TBLB. Hagelempty net(N. Paul)3–5
  3. 19:36TBLP. Holmbergempty net(R. McDonagh)3–6

score reads MIN–TBL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.94
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.027
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
58.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.15Expected goals4.94
TBL 61% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal26
4High-danger chances9
50All attempts (Corsi)69
Adjusted for score: MIN 39% · TBL 61%
Faceoffs · TBL won44%off50%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MIN0 / 4 · 0.98 xG
TBL5 / 9 · 2.63 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MIN2 / 13 · 1.59 xG
TBL0 / 15 · 1.68 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MIN1 / 33 · 0.58 xG
TBL1 / 45 · 0.63 xG

TBL went 5-for-9 from high danger on 2.63 expected goals — 2.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MIN
3 G · 3.15 xG · -0.1
TBL
6 G · 4.94 xG · +1.1
01234567

MIN finished -0.1 against expected, TBL +1.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MIN
WRIST3/21
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/4
SNAP0/3
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/3
BAT0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/12
TBL
WRIST1/18
SLAP1/11
TIP IN0/5
SNAP3/6
BACKHAND0/6
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER1/21
MIN
TBL
Off the rush
2 G on 22
2.16 xG
4 G on 28
3.08 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.44 xG
1 G on 6
0.67 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 3-for-21, TBL 1-for-18. TBL scored 4 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
F. Gustavsson
MIN · 20/24 · .833
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger5/92.6-2.4
Medium0/151.7+1.7
Low1/450.6-0.4

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 · 21/24 · .875
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium2/131.6-0.4
Low1/330.6-0.4

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
MIN
38 shots
3
Final
87 shots
TBL
49 shots
6
MIN attackTBL attack
MIN TBL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN 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
D. Raddysh
#43 · D · TBL
1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 23:48 on ice · +1
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:14 on ice
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:49 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 24
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:43 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 55% win probability for Tampa Bay in a 2.4–2.7 xG affair—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Tampa's Corsi dominance tells the story. The Lightning drive play at 53.0%, a 5-point advantage that translates to territorial control; Minnesota's 48.0% mark reflects a team being pinned for stretches. Neither team converts chances at an outlier rate—Minnesota's xG% sits at 52.0%, Tampa's at 54.0%—meaning this game likely hangs on efficiency.

That efficiency edge is where regression lives. Tampa's PDO sits at 1.019, a sign the Lightning are converting at a rate they can't sustain; Minnesota at 1.007 is closer to neutral. Expect Tampa's luck to normalize, which tilts the baseline closer.

Rest favors Minnesota. The Lightning arrive on one day of rest while the Wild have three, a meaningful gap in a league-wide sprint.

J. Johansson starts on back-to-back nights for Minnesota—whether he draws a fresh backup or pushes through another game remains unclear, but either scenario creates early vulnerability.

Tampa's offensive line carries the weight. Brandon Hagel (1.10 xG/60, 23G 26A, 2 HD goals, 15.8% shooting) and Anthony Cirelli (0.95 xG/60, 15G 18A, 5 HD goals, 17.0% shooting) operate at elite volume and efficiency. For Minnesota, Matt Boldy (0.89 xG/60, 22G 18A, 5 HD goals, 13.7% shooting) is the primary threat, though Robby Fabbri (0.88 xG/60, 2G 3A, 1 HD goals, 6.9% shooting) is likely out.

The Lightning's territorial edge and conversion efficiency should win this game more than not. The rest disadvantage and potential goaltending vulnerability chip away at that margin. Back the model: Tampa.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 55%
54%
TBL
Model favorite
46%
54%
MIN50TBL

TBL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MIN 2.4–2.7 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
MIN← edge
edge →TBL
52.0%54.0%
48.0%53.0%
2.552.67
2.402.28
2.042.38
1.931.85
1.0071.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 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
MIN
5-3-2
+6 GD · 3d rest
TBL
5-4-1
+7 GD · 1d rest
1.007
MIN 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 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 drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Johansson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Wild have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MIN
Expected in goal
F. Gustavsson
3 days rest.967 last start
Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL
Expected in goal
J. Johansson
back-to-back.862 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.

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
MIN
Matt Boldy22G 18A
0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Robby Fabbri2G 3A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% 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