Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
Breakdown · OTT at FLA

Panthers pull away from the Senators

The verdict · earned

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

OTT 3 · FLA 6
◆ 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

Florida won 6-3 in a game where the statistics reinforced the verdict: 59% expected goals and an overperformance of 0.93, meaning the Panthers converted at a clip above what the underlying chances warranted. Control and execution combined.

The Panthers dominated possession metrics. They held 53% of shot attempts (29–26 on goal) and a 7–5 edge in high-danger chances. Quality shot selection gave them an advantage: 0.086 expected goals per attempt compared to Ottawa's 0.060. On transition, they were lethal—5 goals on 31 rush chances—while the Senators managed 2 on 22 and crucially whiffed on five high-danger attempts with zero conversions.

Michael Amadio's snap from the high slot in the third period (04:29) epitomized Florida's sharpness, a moment of precise finishing amid an efficient performance.

Goaltending split unevenly. D. Tarasov (0.885 SV%) was perfect on high-danger chances, stopping all 5. For Ottawa, L. Ullmark surrendered 2.2 more goals than expected in relief work, while J. Reimer countered with a 0.923 save percentage, stopping 1.3 above expected. The latter was solid; both couldn't offset the goalmouth deficit created by chance quality and conversion rates.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 31
OTT
3
FLA
6

Panthers pull away from the Senators

Chances 3.5 – 5.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.55
FLA
5.07
41% of the chances59%

The board read OTT 3, FLA 6. The chances read OTT 3.5, FLA 5.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
+0.9
goals above expected
FLA5.07 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.55 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 00:08FLAN. Gregor0–1
  2. P1 01:06FLAM. SamoskevichPP0–2
  3. P1 09:09FLAC. VerhaeghePP0–3
  4. P1 14:02FLAA. Greer0–4
  5. P1 14:36FLAC. Verhaeghe0–5
  6. P2 01:40OTTD. Batherson1–5
  7. P2 12:41FLAM. Tkachuk1–6
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
45 shots
3
Final
97 shots
FLA
52 shots
6
OTT attackFLA attack
OTT FLA Goal
45
shots · 3 in
52
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTFLA
0 / 5
1.14 xG
High danger
2 / 7
1.71 xG
2 / 17
1.91 xG
Medium
3 / 23
2.73 xG
1 / 37
0.50 xG
Low
1 / 29
0.63 xG

The Senators went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Reimer
+4.1
OTT · 12/13
B
D. Tarasov
+0.6
FLA · 23/26
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers pull away from 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 6–18
  1. 00:08FLAN. Gregor(S. Jones, T. Nosek)0–1
  2. 01:06FLAM. Samoskevichpower play(S. Jones, M. Tkachuk)0–2
  3. 09:09FLAC. Verhaeghepower play(M. Tkachuk, S. Jones)0–3
  4. 14:02FLAA. Greer(E. Luostarinen, D. Sebrango)0–4
  5. 14:36FLAC. Verhaeghe(S. Bennett, M. Tkachuk)0–5
2ndshots 7–7
  1. 01:40OTTD. Batherson1–5
  2. 12:41FLAM. Tkachuk(S. Bennett, C. Verhaeghe)1–6
  3. 15:14OTTJ. Spence(T. Stützle, M. Amadio)2–6
3rdshots 13–4
  1. 04:29OTTM. Amadio(R. Greig, L. Thomson)3–6

score reads OTT–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.07
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.051
FLA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
50.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.55Expected goals5.07
FLA 59% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal29
5High-danger chances7
59All attempts (Corsi)59
Adjusted for score: OTT 58% · FLA 42%
Faceoffs · FLA won40%off44%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT0 / 5 · 1.14 xG
FLA2 / 7 · 1.71 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT2 / 17 · 1.91 xG
FLA3 / 23 · 2.73 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT1 / 37 · 0.50 xG
FLA1 / 29 · 0.63 xG

OTT went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.14 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
3 G · 3.55 xG · -0.6
FLA
6 G · 5.07 xG · +0.9
01234567

OTT finished -0.6 against expected, FLA +0.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
SNAP1/12
WRIST2/18
SLAP0/8
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/14
FLA
SNAP5/30
WRIST1/2
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/5
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/7
OTT
FLA
Off the rush
2 G on 22
2.14 xG
5 G on 31
3.32 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.54 xG
0 G on 5
0.88 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-12, FLA 5-for-30. FLA scored 5 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
L. Ullmark
OTT · 11/16 · .688
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.7-0.3
Medium3/232.7-0.3
Low1/290.6-0.4

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

J. Reimer
OTT · 12/13 · .923
+4.1
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.7-0.3
Medium3/232.7-0.3
Low1/290.6-0.4

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

D. Tarasov
FLA · 23/26 · .885
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.1+1.1
Medium2/171.9-0.1
Low1/370.5-0.5

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

97 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
45 shots
3
Final
97 shots
FLA
52 shots
6
OTT attackFLA attack
OTT FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, FLA 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. Tkachuk
#19 · L · FLA
1 G · 3 A · 5 SOG · 17:13 on ice
S. Jones
#3 · D · FLA
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 25:20 on ice · +2
C. Verhaeghe
#23 · C · FLA
2 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 16:59 on ice
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 2.6–2.4 Senators win with a 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The Senators own the underlying play. Their 56.0% 5v5 xG advantage over Florida signals sustained pressure, but the Panthers' 52.0% Corsi sits nearly level—they're generating chances without much advantage in volume. That disconnect is the game.

Brady Tkachuk carries Ottawa's offense. At 1.19 xG/60 with 11 goals and 20 assists, he's the engine, though his 7.5% shooting leaves room for regression. Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60, 13 goals, 9.5% shooting) is generating chances at a reliable rate; his mark sits closer to sustainable than Tkachuk's.

Florida counters with Sam Bennett, who has posted 18 goals and 19 assists at 0.97 xG/60—a sharp player converting at 13.1%, significantly above what his chances warrant. Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 17 goals, 9 assists, 19.5% shooting) is another forward running hot.

The tension: Ottawa dominates conceptually—the xG and Corsi numbers suggest they should win this more often. But both teams are riding shooting variance above their expected rates. The Senators sit at 7.5% and 9.5% for their top two; the Panthers answer with 13.1% and 19.5%. That's persistent outperformance, and persistence often doesn't survive close matchups.

The PDO readings (0.993 OTT, 0.989 FLA) suggest neither side has dramatically outrun their luck in the underlying metrics, which makes the shooting splits all the more predictive. Florida's Bennett and Marchand are running unsustainably hot. Ottawa has room to regress—or maintain, depending on usage.

Nick Jensen is Ottawa's defensive liability. The Senators' 56.0% xG% matters because it's steady and sustainable; it wins close games. If Florida targets Jensen's shifts, they'll manufacture volume. But sustained advantage usually persists.

Watch for Tkachuk's touch. If he scores, Ottawa likely wins. If he doesn't, the tight Corsi and Florida's hot hands become the story.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 53%
53%
OTT
Model favorite
53%
47%
OTT50FLA

OTT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.6–2.4 FLA; 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 →FLA
56.0%49.0%
53.0%52.0%
2.662.48
2.122.56
2.181.98
1.992.21
0.9930.989

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.989) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
OTT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
FLA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next