Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater

Breakdown · MTL at TBL

J. Dobes stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Lightning

FinalTue, Mar 31

MTLMontreal Canadiens4 TBLTampa Bay Lightning1

The verdict · stolen

The Canadiens stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.28–4.07 and won anyway.

MTL 4 · TBL 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:46 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

Montreal won 4-1. Tampa Bay dominated—controlling 55% of expected goals and 62% of shot attempts. J. Dobes erased the contradiction.

The Canadiens goaltender saved 36 of 37 shots at a 0.973 percentage, outperforming by 3.07 goals. A. Vasilevskiy managed 19 of 21 saves at 0.905, solid work in a losing cause.

Montreal's precision was the leverage. The Canadiens converted 60% of high-danger chances (3 of 5) and scored twice on 24 rush attempts. Tampa held the better opportunities—8 high-danger chances versus Montreal's 5—but lacked finish. Process without payoff is sterile.

Nick Suzuki's wrist shot from the point (P3, 18:54) marked the game's hinge.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 31

MTL

TBL

J. Dobes stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Lightning

Chances 3.3 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

MTL

3.28

TBL

4.07

45% of the chances55%

The board read MTL 4, TBL 1. The chances read MTL 3.3, TBL 4.1.

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

Luck check

MTL

+0.7

goals above expected

MTL3.28 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

TBL4.07 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Lightning left 3.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 12:25MTLJ. SlafkovskýPP1–0
P1 13:41TBLJ. Guentzel1–1
P2 12:49MTLC. Caufield2–1
P3 17:54MTLM. MathesonEN3–1
P3 18:54MTLN. SuzukiEN4–1

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

Where the shots came from

MTL

34 shots

Final

81 shots

TBL

47 shots

MTL TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

MTLTBL

3 / 5

1.56 xG

High danger

1 / 8

1.90 xG

1 / 12

1.25 xG

Medium

0 / 13

1.47 xG

0 / 26

0.47 xG

Low

0 / 43

0.70 xG

The Canadiens buried 3 of 5 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A+

J. Dobes

+3.1

MTL · 36/37

B+

A. Vasilevskiy

+1.3

TBL · 19/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

J. Dobes stands tall as the Canadiens edge the Lightning

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 9–8

12:25MTLJ. Slafkovskýpower play(I. Demidov, C. Caufield)1–0
13:41TBLJ. Guentzel(Z. Girgensons, R. McDonagh)1–1

2ndshots 6–12

12:49MTLC. Caufield(J. Slafkovský, M. Matheson)2–1

3rdshots 8–17

17:54MTLM. Mathesonempty net3–1
18:54MTLN. Suzukiempty net4–1

score reads MTL–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.28

MTL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.077

MTL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

40.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.28Expected goals4.07

TBL 55% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal37

5High-danger chances8

43All attempts (Corsi)64

Adjusted for score: MTL 38% · TBL 62%

Faceoffs · TBL won52%off46%neu38%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

MTL3 / 5 · 1.56 xG

TBL1 / 8 · 1.90 xG

Medium dangermid-range

MTL1 / 12 · 1.25 xG

TBL0 / 13 · 1.47 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

MTL0 / 26 · 0.47 xG

TBL0 / 43 · 0.70 xG

TBL went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.47 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

MTL

4 G · 3.28 xG · +0.7

TBL

1 G · 4.07 xG · -3.1

012345

MTL finished +0.7 against expected, TBL -3.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

MTL

WRIST2/6

SNAP1/16

SLAP1/7

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/2

BAT0/0

OTHER0/9

TBL

WRIST1/21

SNAP0/4

SLAP0/12

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/3

BAT0/2

OTHER0/17

MTL

TBL

Off the rush

2 G on 24

2.31 xG

0 G on 29

2.58 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

0 G on 4

0.83 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 2-for-6, TBL 1-for-21. MTL 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. Dobes

MTL · 36/37 · .973

+3.1

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/81.9+0.9

Medium0/131.5+1.5

Low0/430.7+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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 19/21 · .905

+1.3

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/51.6-1.4

Medium1/121.3+0.3

Low0/260.5+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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

MTL

34 shots

Final

81 shots

TBL

47 shots

MTL TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL 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

M. Matheson

#8 · D · MTL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:28 on ice · +2

J. Slafkovský

#20 · L · MTL

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:12 on ice · +2

C. Caufield

#13 · R · MTL

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:05 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 31

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:44 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 2.3–2.8 goal Lightning victory at 57% win probability. That edge runs clean through the underlying numbers.

Tampa dominates 5v5 play. The Lightning's 54.0% expected goals share dwarfs Montreal's 48.0%, a 6-point gap that compounds over 60 minutes. The territorial advantage shows at 53.0% Corsi to Montreal's 49.0% — the Lightning simply control the puck where it matters most. Montreal will be chasing all night.

Both teams are burning PDO luck, though neither by much. Tampa's 1.019 and Montreal's 1.018 place both squads in the fortunate camp. Regression works both directions: the team that falls further will hurt more. Each goal that doesn't fall becomes a compounding problem when you're already behind in shot volume.

The individual matchups explain the depth of Montreal's challenge. Brandon Hagel leads with 1.10 xG/60 and 23 goals at a 15.8% clip — elite finishing on elite volume. Anthony Cirelli provides secondary punch at 0.95 xG/60, driving 15 goals on 5 high-danger markers. Cole Caufield counters for Montreal at 0.97 xG/60 and 33 goals, but his 20.0% shooting rate is unsustainable. Oliver Kapanen contributes at 0.83 xG/60 and 19 goals with 4 high-danger markers, though his 17.8% shooting rate sits below Caufield's elite threshold.

Montreal's problem is structural. It's not that Caufield lacks talent. It's that Caufield must do too much.

Three Stars

Brandon Hagel — 1.10 xG/60, 23 goals
Cole Caufield — 0.97 xG/60, 33 goals
Anthony Cirelli — 0.95 xG/60, 15 goals

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 57%

57%

TBL

Model favorite

43%

57%

MTL50TBL

TBL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 2.3–2.8 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

MTL← edge

edge →TBL

48.0%54.0%

49.0%53.0%

2.412.67

2.622.28

2.242.38

1.961.85

1.0181.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 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

MTL

7-3-0

+10 GD · 2d rest

TBL

7-1-2

+16 GD · 2d rest

1.018

MTL 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 48.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

MTL

Expected in goal

J. Dobes

2 days rest.971 last start

Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL

Expected in goal

J. Johansson

2 days rest.935 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

MTL

Cole Caufield33G 16A

0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh

Oliver Kapanen19G 12A

0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% 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

Back to the front page