The Lightning earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
Tampa Bay's 6–3 victory masked a more decisive edge: the Lightning controlled 70 percent of expected goals despite holding only 58 percent of shot attempts (4.85 to 2.08 xG; 33 to 24 on goal). Shot quality—not volume—carried the game.
Pittsburgh generated higher-quality chances relative to their shot volume; the Lightning generated far more dangerous ones. Tampa Bay produced 0.072 expected goals per shot; Pittsburgh 0.045. The gap compounded: the Lightning buried 50 percent of their high-danger chances (3 of 6) and were lethal on the rush, scoring twice on 25 chances. Pittsburgh, by contrast, converted three rush chances on just 21 attempts—a stunning efficiency that went for naught.
Variance cut both ways, but inconsistently. The Lightning overperformed their model by 1.15 goals; Pittsburgh exceeded theirs by 0.92. A. Vasilevskiy (0.875 SV%) beat his xG assumptions (−0.92). S. Skinner underperformed his.
The Penguins' most dangerous moment came early: Egor Chinakhov's snap shot from the top of the circles in the third period (19:58) briefly tightened a blowout. It proved a speed bump.
Tampa Bay's dominance lived in deeper measures: 7 rebound opportunities (2 converted) and clinical execution when it mattered. Off the transition, they were uncatchable.
Pittsburgh played a respectable road game by efficiency metrics—more dangerous looks, proportionally, than their shot count revealed—but they couldn't overcome a Lightning team that turned possession into danger and danger into goals.