Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
Breakdown · BOS at TBL

Lightning hold off the Bruins

The verdict · earned

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

BOS 1 · TBL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:16 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

The Lightning won 3-1, but expected goals suggested a tighter margin. Tampa Bay's 3.11 xG to Boston's 2.72 narrowed what the scoreboard called a comfortable 2-goal advantage—a gap that tells you more about the Bruins' execution than the Lightning's dominance.

Boston did itself no favors underperforming their expected goals by 1.72. They generated chances; they just didn't finish them. A. Vasilevskiy, meanwhile, overperformed by 1.72 in the opposite direction, posting a 0.955 save percentage that matched his team's quality of shot-taking.

The Lightning controlled the shot-attempt share (51%, 23-22 on goal), but the real edge was in shot quality. They generated 0.066 expected goals per shot to Boston's 0.046. That efficiency showed on the rush: two goals on 19 chances, a conversion rate the Bruins never threatened. Tampa Bay also crashed harder on rebounds, converting one of four opportunities; Boston created five and converted none.

Nikita Kucherov delivered the turning point—a snap shot from the top of the circles at 18:27 of the third period—and the Lightning's depth pieces added the polish. J. Moser contributed an assist across 21:42, as did J. Guentzel in 21:05. D. Raddysh, the goal scorer in 20:41, rounded out the three stars.

J. Swayman stopped 1.11 goals above expected (0.909 SV%), a respectable outing in a losing effort. He wasn't the problem. The problem was Boston's inability to convert the quality looks they earned.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 4
BOS
1
TBL
3

Lightning hold off the Bruins

Chances 2.7 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
BOS
2.72
TBL
3.11
47% of the chances53%

The board read BOS 1, TBL 3. The chances read BOS 2.7, TBL 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−0.1
goals above expected
TBL3.11 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS2.72 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Bruins left 1.7 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. P2 06:47BOSC. Mittelstadt1–0
  2. P3 02:13TBLC. D'Astous1–1
  3. P3 14:29TBLD. Raddysh1–2
  4. P3 18:27TBLN. KucherovEN1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BOS
46 shots
1
Final
79 shots
TBL
33 shots
3
BOS attackTBL attack
BOS TBL Goal
46
shots · 1 in
33
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BOSTBL
1 / 3
0.67 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.66 xG
0 / 13
1.22 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.11 xG
0 / 43
0.84 xG
Low
1 / 31
0.33 xG

High-danger looks: BOS 1 of 3, TBL 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Vasilevskiy
+1.7
TBL · 21/22
B+
J. Swayman
+1.1
BOS · 20/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning hold off the Bruins

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 8–8no goals
    2ndshots 11–5
    1. 06:47BOSC. Mittelstadt(V. Arvidsson, P. Zacha)1–0
    3rdshots 3–10
    1. 02:13TBLC. D'Astous(O. Bjorkstrand)1–1
    2. 14:29TBLD. Raddysh(J. Moser)1–2
    3. 18:27TBLN. Kucherovempty net(J. Guentzel, R. McDonagh)1–3

    score reads BOS–TBL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.11
    TBL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.047
    TBL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    44.3%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.72Expected goals3.11
    TBL 53% of the chance quality
    22Shots on goal23
    3High-danger chances5
    59All attempts (Corsi)47
    Adjusted for score: BOS 55% · TBL 45%
    Faceoffs · TBL won23%off44%neu28%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    BOS1 / 3 · 0.67 xG
    TBL1 / 5 · 1.66 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    BOS0 / 13 · 1.22 xG
    TBL1 / 11 · 1.11 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    BOS0 / 43 · 0.84 xG
    TBL1 / 31 · 0.33 xG

    BOS went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.22 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    BOS
    1 G · 2.72 xG · -1.7
    TBL
    3 G · 3.11 xG · -0.1
    01234

    BOS finished -1.7 against expected, TBL -0.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    BOS
    WRIST0/26
    SNAP1/2
    SLAP0/7
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND0/3
    BAT0/0
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/13
    TBL
    WRIST0/4
    SNAP3/21
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN0/1
    BACKHAND0/3
    BAT0/2
    POKE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/14
    BOS
    TBL
    Off the rush
    0 G on 25
    1.41 xG
    2 G on 19
    2.35 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 5
    0.74 xG
    1 G on 4
    0.56 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: BOS went 0-for-26, TBL 0-for-4. TBL 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. Swayman
    BOS · 20/22 · .909
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.7+0.7
    Medium1/111.1+0.1
    Low1/310.3-0.7

    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 · 21/22 · .955
    +1.7
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.7-0.3
    Medium0/131.2+1.2
    Low0/430.8+0.8

    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

    79 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    BOS
    46 shots
    1
    Final
    79 shots
    TBL
    33 shots
    3
    BOS attackTBL attack
    BOS TBL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — BOS 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. Moser
    #90 · D · TBL
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:42 on ice
    J. Guentzel
    #59 · C · TBL
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:05 on ice · +1
    D. Raddysh
    #43 · D · TBL
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 20:41 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Apr 4
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:15 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 victory for the Lightning with Tampa Bay at 58% win probability. The edge lives in the underlying play.

    Tampa Bay commands 54.0% expected goals at 5v5 to Boston's 47.0%, a gap that reflects genuine territorial dominance. The Corsi spread—53.0% for the Lightning, 49.0% for the Bruins—confirms the possession tilt: expect the Lightning to spend most of this game in the Boston end.

    That advantage is material. But both teams have a PDO problem.

    Boston sits at 1.023 PDO. Tampa Bay is at 1.019. Both numbers signal unsustainable run-good—the kind of luck that historically corrects sharply. When a team outscores its underlying talent, regression costs goals. The model discounts both clubs accordingly.

    The real fight is about who controls the slot. Brandon Hagel becomes essential for Tampa. He generates 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes, sits at 23 goals with 2 high-danger chances, and carries a 15.8% shooting rate. Anthony Cirelli, Tampa's secondary threat, runs 0.95 xG/60 with a punishing 17.0% shot rate, buoyed by 5 high-danger goals. Both players finish at rates above their underlying shot volume, suggesting regression.

    Viktor Arvidsson is Boston's marker. He's at 1.04 xG/60 with 18 goals, 2 high-danger goals, and a 13.0% clip. Tanner Jeannot is the name to monitor: 0.75 xG/60 on an 8.3% shot rate (6 goals) leaves little room for regression in efficiency.

    The model sees this differently than narrative framing. It's not betting on Jeannot to outperform; it's pricing the fact that neither Boston player can sustain their current pace. Tampa's Hagel and Cirelli face identical regression pressure. In that environment, territorial control becomes the deciding factor. The Lightning keep the puck, create more chances, and let their odds compound.

    Elias Lindholm (BOS) and Victor Hedman (TBL) are the defensive weak links both teams will probe.

    Three Stars

    • Brandon Hagel (TBL)—the high-danger catalyst
    • Viktor Arvidsson (BOS)—Boston's conversion engine
    • Anthony Cirelli (TBL)—Tampa's secondary slot threat
    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 58%
    58%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    42%
    58%
    BOS50TBL

    TBL by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score BOS 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
    BOS← edge
    edge →TBL
    47.0%54.0%
    49.0%53.0%
    2.392.67
    2.672.28
    2.222.38
    1.821.85
    1.0231.019

    TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.023 vs 1.019) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    BOS
    6-2-2
    +10 GD · 2d rest
    TBL
    7-1-2
    +15 GD · 2d rest
    1.023
    BOS 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 47.0%.
    • 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 Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • 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
    BOS
    Expected in goal
    J. Swayman
    2 days rest.917 last start
    Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    TBL
    Expected in goal
    A. Vasilevskiy
    2 days rest.875 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
    BOS
    Viktor Arvidsson18G 24A
    1.04 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
    Tanner Jeannot6G 14A
    0.75 xG/60 · 2 HD · 8.3% 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