Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Sun, Mar 29 · the slate
Breakdown · NSH at TBL

Lightning hold off the Predators

FinalSun, Mar 29
NSHNashville Predators2TBLTampa Bay Lightning3
The verdict · earned

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

NSH 2 · TBL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:26 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 won despite being outshot 31-28. The Lightning edged the Predators 3-2 while trailing in shot attempts. They controlled dangerous areas—high-danger chances went 6–3 in their favor. That separated the teams.

The underlying numbers support it. Lightning controlled 57% of 5v5 expected goals (4.19–3.13). They dominated high-danger chances 6–3.

Both goaltenders beat their xG. J. Johansson (TBL) posted a 0.935 SV% (+1.13 vs expected) on 29 saves. J. Annunen (NSH) made 25 of 28 saves (0.893 SV%), stopping 1.19 goals above expected. Nashville generated higher-quality looks than their shot count suggested.

Corey Perry's snap shot from the doorstep (third period, 6:52) proved decisive. The Lightning controlled 48% of shot attempts (28–31), yet expected goals (57–43) showed where the real advantage lay. Nashville launched 21 rush attempts and scored twice, but Tampa's execution in high-danger areas—3 of 6 converted (50%)—was the difference in a tight game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 29
NSH
2
TBL
3

Lightning hold off the Predators

Chances 3.1 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
3.13
TBL
4.19
43% of the chances57%

The board read NSH 2, TBL 3. The chances read NSH 3.1, TBL 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−1.2
goals above expected
TBL4.19 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH3.13 expected · 2 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. P2 08:31NSHJ. Kemell1–0
  2. P2 13:32TBLJ. Guentzel1–1
  3. P3 04:33TBLB. Hagel1–2
  4. P3 04:53NSHF. Forsberg2–2
  5. P3 06:52TBLC. Perry2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
45 shots
2
Final
95 shots
TBL
50 shots
3
NSH attackTBL attack
NSH TBL Goal
45
shots · 2 in
50
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHTBL
0 / 3
0.72 xG
High danger
3 / 6
1.58 xG
1 / 13
1.65 xG
Medium
0 / 17
1.93 xG
1 / 43
0.76 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.68 xG

The Predators went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Annunen
+1.2
NSH · 25/28
B+
J. Johansson
+1.1
TBL · 29/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning hold off the Predators

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 10–1no goals
    2ndshots 8–11
    1. 08:31NSHJ. Kemell(F. Forsberg, J. Barron)1–0
    2. 13:32TBLJ. Guentzel(D. Raddysh, C. D'Astous)1–1
    3rdshots 13–16
    1. 04:33TBLB. Hagel(J. Guentzel)1–2
    2. 04:53NSHF. Forsberg(F. Svechkov, A. Wilsby)2–2
    3. 06:52TBLC. Perry(J. Guentzel, E. Lilleberg)2–3

    score reads NSH–TBL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.19
    TBL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.014
    TBL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    51.6%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.13Expected goals4.19
    TBL 57% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal28
    3High-danger chances6
    59All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: NSH 49% · TBL 51%
    Faceoffs · TBL won39%off53%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NSH0 / 3 · 0.72 xG
    TBL3 / 6 · 1.58 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NSH1 / 13 · 1.65 xG
    TBL0 / 17 · 1.93 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NSH1 / 43 · 0.76 xG
    TBL0 / 40 · 0.68 xG

    TBL went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 1.93 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NSH
    2 G · 3.13 xG · -1.1
    TBL
    3 G · 4.19 xG · -1.2
    012345

    NSH finished -1.1 against expected, TBL -1.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NSH
    SNAP0/16
    SLAP0/16
    TIP IN1/3
    WRIST0/3
    BACKHAND0/5
    DEFLECTED1/2
    OTHER0/14
    TBL
    SNAP2/29
    SLAP0/7
    TIP IN0/6
    WRIST1/5
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/13
    NSH
    TBL
    Off the rush
    2 G on 21
    1.72 xG
    1 G on 30
    2.91 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 7
    0.91 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.80 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: NSH went 0-for-16, TBL 2-for-29. NSH scored 2 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. Annunen
    NSH · 25/28 · .893
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger3/61.6-1.4
    Medium0/171.9+1.9
    Low0/400.7+0.7

    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

    J. Johansson
    TBL · 29/31 · .935
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium1/131.6+0.7
    Low1/430.8-0.2

    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

    95 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NSH
    45 shots
    2
    Final
    95 shots
    TBL
    50 shots
    3
    NSH attackTBL attack
    NSH TBL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH 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
    J. Guentzel
    #59 · C · TBL
    1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:46 on ice · +3
    F. Forsberg
    #9 · L · NSH
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:37 on ice · +2
    D. Raddysh
    #43 · D · TBL
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:51 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Mar 29
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:25 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 gives Tampa Bay 56% win probability in a projected 2.4–2.8-goal victory. This edge is built on real underlying metrics: the Lightning hold 54.0% expected goals at 5v5 against Nashville's 49.0%, and control play at 53.0% Corsi. But there's a structural problem. Tampa's PDO of 1.019 means they're converting nearly two percentage points above the sustainable rate. Nashville's 0.992 sits the other way. When one team is running artificially hot and the other artificially cold, betting the gap requires that imbalance to persist.

    It usually doesn't.

    Both teams face goaltending questions on back-to-backs. A. Vasilevskiy and J. Saros could see backup deployments or tired performances, either way creating opportunity for the opposition.

    Players to Watch

    NSH

    • Zachary L'Heureux: 0.85 xG/60, 4G 0A, 1 HD goal, 16.0% shooting
    • Filip Forsberg: 0.80 xG/60, 23G 17A, 4 HD goals, 13.6% shooting

    TBL

    • Brandon Hagel: 1.10 xG/60, 23G 26A, 2 HD goals, 15.8% shooting
    • Anthony Cirelli: 0.95 xG/60, 15G 18A, 5 HD goals, 17.0% shooting

    Nashville's offense has become a shooting clinic with real risk: 0% of goals arrive via high-danger chances or rebounds, meaning all scoring runs through shot luck. L'Heureux at 16.0% and Forsberg at 13.6% are both in regression territory. Tampa's structural problem mirrors Nashville's—0% HD goals, 0% rebound goals—yet Hagel (15.8% shooting) and Cirelli (17.0% shooting) have the track record to support elevated conversion.

    Jonathan Marchessault is Nashville's defensive weak link. Victor Hedman bears that responsibility for Tampa, though framing Hedman as weak is generous to everyone else—he remains among the league's best.

    The underlying play favors Tampa. But PDO regression isn't theoretical; it's gravitational. At 56%, this lean asks you to believe Tampa's edge survives the night both teams' shooting percentages normalize. That's possible. Just not certain.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 56%
    56%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    NSH50TBL

    TBL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NSH 2.4–2.8 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
    NSH← edge
    edge →TBL
    49.0%54.0%
    50.0%53.0%
    2.482.67
    2.582.28
    1.842.38
    2.211.85
    0.9921.019

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 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
    NSH
    6-3-1
    +4 GD · 1d rest
    TBL
    6-2-2
    +12 GD · 1d rest
    0.992
    NSH 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 49.0%.
    • 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 49.0%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • A. Vasilevskiy is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • J. Saros 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.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    NSH
    Expected in goal
    J. Saros
    back-to-back.875 last start
    Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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.

    TBL
    Expected in goal
    A. Vasilevskiy
    back-to-back.929 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
    NSH
    Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
    0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
    Filip Forsberg23G 17A
    0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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