Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Sat, Mar 28 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at TBL

Lightning hold off the Senators

FinalSat, Mar 28
OTTOttawa Senators2TBLTampa Bay Lightning4
The verdict · earned

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

OTT 2 · TBL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:12 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

Andrei Vasilevskiy's 0.929 save percentage decided this game. The Lightning beat the Senators 4-2, with Vasilevskiy posting 1.77 goals above expected on 26 of 28 saves. J. Reimer was 0.94 above expected on 23 of 27 but couldn't match that performance.

The underlying metrics mostly backed Tampa. They controlled 57% of expected goals at 5v5 (4.94–3.77), though the Senators had more high-danger chances (8–6). The Senators generated looks but couldn't convert: they underperformed their expected goals by 1.77, scoring 2 on 3.77 xG. The Lightning underperformed theirs by 0.94 but still posted 4.

Tampa's efficiency on the rush amplified the gap: 4 goals on 33 chances. The Senators crashed the net—6 rebound opportunities, 1 converted. That imbalance, paired with Vasilevskiy's brilliance, decided the outcome.

Jake Guentzel's wrist shot from the high slot at 17:48 of the second period was the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 28
OTT
2
TBL
4

Lightning hold off the Senators

Chances 3.8 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.77
TBL
4.94
43% of the chances57%

The board read OTT 2, TBL 4. The chances read OTT 3.8, TBL 4.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−0.9
goals above expected
TBL4.94 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.77 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators left 1.8 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:18OTTD. Cozens1–0
  2. P1 04:25OTTJ. Spence2–0
  3. P2 03:37TBLB. Hagel2–1
  4. P2 05:14TBLC. D'Astous2–2
  5. P3 08:51TBLE. Lilleberg2–3
  6. P3 17:48TBLJ. Guentzel2–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
40 shots
2
Final
93 shots
TBL
53 shots
4
OTT attackTBL attack
OTT TBL Goal
40
shots · 2 in
53
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTTBL
1 / 8
2.01 xG
High danger
2 / 6
2.05 xG
0 / 11
1.15 xG
Medium
2 / 20
2.28 xG
1 / 34
0.60 xG
Low
0 / 51
0.61 xG

The Lightning buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.8
TBL · 26/28
B+
J. Reimer
+0.9
OTT · 23/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning hold off the Senators

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 11–8
  1. 00:18OTTD. Cozens(T. Kleven, B. Tkachuk)1–0
  2. 04:25OTTJ. Spence(N. Cousins, A. Zub)2–0
2ndshots 8–11
  1. 03:37TBLB. Hagel(C. D'Astous, E. Lilleberg)2–1
  2. 05:14TBLC. D'Astous(Y. Gourde, Z. Girgensons)2–2
3rdshots 9–8
  1. 08:51TBLE. Lilleberg(B. Hagel, G. Goncalves)2–3
  2. 17:48TBLJ. Guentzel(C. Perry, E. Lilleberg)2–4

score reads OTT–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
−0.9
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.014
TBL puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
59.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.77Expected goals4.94
TBL 57% of the chance quality
28Shots on goal27
8High-danger chances6
53All attempts (Corsi)77
Adjusted for score: OTT 39% · TBL 61%
Faceoffs · TBL won45%off62%neu30%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT1 / 8 · 2.01 xG
TBL2 / 6 · 2.05 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT0 / 11 · 1.15 xG
TBL2 / 20 · 2.28 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT1 / 34 · 0.60 xG
TBL0 / 51 · 0.61 xG

OTT went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.15 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
2 G · 3.77 xG · -1.8
TBL
4 G · 4.94 xG · -0.9
0123456

OTT finished -1.8 against expected, TBL -0.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
SNAP0/23
WRIST2/5
SLAP0/9
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/13
TBL
SNAP0/22
WRIST3/15
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND1/3
TIP IN0/5
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/24
OTT
TBL
Off the rush
1 G on 20
1.51 xG
4 G on 33
3.61 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 6
1.50 xG
0 G on 3
0.07 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 0-for-23, TBL 0-for-22. 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
J. Reimer
OTT · 23/27 · .852
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/62.0+0.1
Medium2/202.3+0.3
Low0/510.6+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 · 26/28 · .929
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/82.0+1.0
Medium0/111.1+1.1
Low1/340.6-0.4

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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
40 shots
2
Final
93 shots
TBL
53 shots
4
OTT attackTBL attack
OTT TBL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
E. Lilleberg
#78 · D · TBL
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 14:58 on ice · +4
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:17 on ice · +2
C. D'Astous
#51 · D · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:29 on ice · +4
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 28
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:10 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 2.5-2.5 game with the Lightning at 51% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The underlying talent is similarly balanced. Ottawa carries a 56.0% xG edge over Tampa Bay's 54.0%, but both teams sit at exactly 53.0% Corsi. The Senators generate slightly cleaner chances, yet neither side dominates possession.

Tampa Bay is running hot. A 1.019 PDO means the Lightning are converting at a rate well above sustainable—expect regression.

Brady Tkachuk anchors Ottawa's offense with 1.19 xG/60, 11 goals and 20 assists. Dylan Cozens complements at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals and 15 assists. Tampa Bay counters with Brandon Hagel (1.10 xG/60, 23 goals, 26 assists) and Anthony Cirelli (0.95 xG/60, 15 goals, 18 assists).

The scoring profiles diverge subtly. Tkachuk and Hagel each have 2 hard-hat goals; Cozens has 1. Cirelli, meanwhile, has 5 hard-hat goals—an unusually high proportion of his total. That efficiency won't persist.

Shooting percentages reveal the real gap. Tkachuk operates at 7.5%, Cozens at 9.5%. Hagel shoots 15.8%, Cirelli 17.0%—elite rates that will regress. When the Lightning forwards cool, the PDO advantage evaporates.

Defensively, Nick Jensen is Ottawa's weak link, while Victor Hedman anchors Tampa Bay's backline liability. This is a genuine coin flip.

Three Stars to Watch

  • Brady Tkachuk (OTT): 11G, 20A, 1.19 xG/60
  • Brandon Hagel (TBL): 23G, 26A, 15.8% shooting
  • Anthony Cirelli (TBL): 15G, 18A, 17.0% shooting
What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 51%
51%
TBL
Model favorite
49%
51%
OTT50TBL

TBL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 2.5–2.5 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
OTT← edge
edge →TBL
56.0%54.0%
53.0%53.0%
2.662.67
2.122.28
2.182.38
1.991.85
0.9931.019

TBL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 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
OTT
7-2-1
+8 GD · 2d rest
TBL
5-3-2
+9 GD · 2d rest
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
2 days rest.925 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL
Expected in goal
A. Vasilevskiy
2 days rest.800 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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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