Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater
Breakdown · SEA at TBL

Kraken steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Kraken stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.78–3.27 and won anyway.

SEA 4 · TBL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:54 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

Seattle finished 4-3 in overtime despite managing only 1.78 expected goals to Tampa's 3.27 — a 65-35 xG split that perfectly captures a heist. The Kraken overperformed their xG by 2.22 goals, essentially winning with process that would lose nine times out of ten.

The Lightning controlled both volume (33 shot attempts to 20) and quality (four high-danger chances to one). Yet Seattle's rush efficiency was lethal: four goals on 18 chances versus Tampa's three on 27. Process favored the Lightning everywhere; execution belonged to the Kraken.

P. Grubauer stopped 30 of 33 (0.909 SV%). A. Vasilevskiy's 0.800 mark (16/20) left him 2.22 short of expected.

The deciding moment arrived at 02:47 of overtime: B. Montour's wrist shot from a sharp angle.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 26
SEA
4
TBL
3

Kraken steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

Chances 1.8 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
SEA
1.78
TBL
3.27
35% of the chances65%

The board read SEA 4, TBL 3. The chances read SEA 1.8, TBL 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SEA
+2.2
goals above expected
SEA1.78 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL3.27 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kraken 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
  1. P1 15:18SEAB. Montour1–0
  2. P1 17:01TBLA. Cirelli1–1
  3. P1 18:12SEAK. Kakko2–1
  4. P2 03:35SEAB. McMann3–1
  5. P2 05:56TBLJ. Guentzel3–2
  6. P2 10:18TBLC. PerryPP3–3
  7. OT 02:47SEAB. Montour4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SEA
25 shots
4
Final
69 shots
TBL
44 shots
3
SEA attackTBL attack
SEA TBL Goal
25
shots · 4 in
44
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SEATBL
1 / 1
0.30 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.89 xG
3 / 11
1.12 xG
Medium
2 / 16
1.76 xG
0 / 22
0.36 xG
Low
0 / 53
0.61 xG

High-danger looks: SEA 1 of 1, TBL 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
P. Grubauer
+0.3
SEA · 30/33
F
A. Vasilevskiy
−2.2
TBL · 16/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kraken steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

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 8–6
  1. 15:18SEAB. Montour(F. Gaudreau, O. Fisker Molgaard)1–0
  2. 17:01TBLA. Cirelli(B. Hagel, C. D'Astous)1–1
  3. 18:12SEAK. Kakko(C. Stephenson, B. McMann)2–1
2ndshots 7–15
  1. 03:35SEAB. McMann(K. Kakko, A. Larsson)3–1
  2. 05:56TBLJ. Guentzel(D. Raddysh, C. D'Astous)3–2
  3. 10:18TBLC. Perrypower play(J. Guentzel, N. Kucherov)3–3
3rdshots 4–11no goals
    OTshots 1–1
    1. 02:47SEAB. Montour(S. Wright, B. Catton)4–3

    score reads SEA–TBL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    1.78
    SEA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.2
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.077
    SEA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    31.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    1.78Expected goals3.27
    TBL 65% of the chance quality
    20Shots on goal33
    1High-danger chances4
    34All attempts (Corsi)73
    Adjusted for score: SEA 31% · TBL 69%
    Faceoffs · TBL won77%off57%neu36%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    SEA1 / 1 · 0.30 xG
    TBL1 / 4 · 0.89 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    SEA3 / 11 · 1.12 xG
    TBL2 / 16 · 1.76 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    SEA0 / 22 · 0.36 xG
    TBL0 / 53 · 0.61 xG

    SEA went 3-for-11 from medium danger on 1.12 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    SEA
    4 G · 1.78 xG · +2.2
    TBL
    3 G · 3.27 xG · -0.3
    012345

    SEA finished +2.2 against expected, TBL -0.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    SEA
    SNAP1/18
    SLAP0/2
    WRIST2/2
    TIP IN0/0
    BACKHAND1/3
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/9
    TBL
    SNAP3/19
    SLAP0/12
    WRIST0/8
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/0
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/29
    SEA
    TBL
    Off the rush
    4 G on 18
    1.60 xG
    3 G on 27
    2.79 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.11 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: SEA went 1-for-18, TBL 3-for-19. SEA 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
    P. Grubauer
    SEA · 30/33 · .909
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/40.9-0.1
    Medium2/161.8-0.2
    Low0/530.6+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

    A. Vasilevskiy
    TBL · 16/20 · .800
    -2.2
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/10.3-0.7
    Medium3/111.1-1.9
    Low0/220.4+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

    69 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    SEA
    25 shots
    4
    Final
    69 shots
    TBL
    44 shots
    3
    SEA attackTBL attack
    SEA TBL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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
    B. Montour
    #62 · D · SEA
    2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 23:04 on ice · +2
    C. D'Astous
    #51 · D · TBL
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:23 on ice
    B. McMann
    #74 · C · SEA
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:45 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:52 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 2.2–2.7 goal game favoring Tampa Bay, with the Lightning at 59% win probability. That edge rests on cleaner underlying play, though Tampa's PDO shows enough variance to matter.

    The Lightning drive the play decisively. At 5v5, they own 54.0% expected goals to Seattle's 46.0%, and that gap widens at the team level—Tampa holds 53.0% Corsi to Seattle's 45.0%. When a team controls territory that thoroughly, shot volume becomes execution's only lever. Tampa's conversion will be tested.

    Form tilts Tampa's way. The Lightning are 6-3-1 over their last 10, a pace that compounds. Seattle is underwater at minus-13 goal differential over the same span, suggesting not just bad luck but fractures in execution or defensive positioning. That depth of struggle usually requires more than a one-game fix.

    The caveat: Tampa's PDO sits at 1.019, meaningfully elevated. Seattle checks in at 1.011—still high, but the Lightning's margin suggests they're sustaining a luck premium. PDO regression is not a prediction; it's a long-term pressure. In a single game, PDO is a non-factor. But when a team's actual results have outpaced its chance quality, variance tends toward the mean. For bettors, that regressive pull is priced in only partially.

    Players to Watch

    Brandon Hagel is the Lightning's engine at 5v5. He's averaging 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes—league-elite pace—and has converted at a 15.8% rate with 23 goals and 26 assists. Anthony Cirelli pairs with him at 0.95 xG/60 and a sharper 17.0% conversion, posting 15 goals and 18 assists. Tampa's depth is the real story; it takes multiple threats to sustain that kind of territorial dominance when opponents are playing full-strength hockey.

    Seattle's answer starts with Shane Wright. At 0.77 xG/60 with 4 high-danger chances, he's underperforming his shot quality slightly, though his 10.4% shooting rate (8 goals, 10 assists) hints at selectivity. Berkly Catton carries similar volume at 0.68 xG/60 and 6 goals on an 8.8% clip, suggesting both Kraken forwards are letting shot quality do the work rather than chasing volume. Neither is enough to offset Tampa's territorial control.

    Expect Tampa to dictate pace from the opening shift. Seattle's task is narrow: compress the neutral zone and force Tampa into low-danger looks. The Kraken won't win the expected goals battle. Their margin for error is the PDO regression working in their favor and Tampa's conversion dropping toward league average. That's a thin path. The model sees it, which is why the projection lands firmly Tampa's way.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 59%
    59%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    41%
    59%
    SEA50TBL

    TBL by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score SEA 2.2–2.7 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
    SEA← edge
    edge →TBL
    46.0%54.0%
    45.0%53.0%
    2.132.67
    2.512.28
    1.872.38
    1.951.85
    1.0111.019

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 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
    SEA
    2-7-1
    -13 GD · 2d rest
    TBL
    6-3-1
    +13 GD · 2d rest
    1.011
    SEA 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 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.
    • The Lightning are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
    • The Kraken are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    SEA
    Expected in goal
    J. Daccord
    2 days rest.875 last start
    Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    TBL
    Expected in goal
    A. Vasilevskiy
    2 days rest.875 last start
    Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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
    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
    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