Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · TBL at OTT

Senators run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 2 · OTT 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:41 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 Senators' 6-2 victory was backed up entirely by the underlying numbers. They controlled 64% of 5v5 expected goals (5.48–3.05) while generating far more high-danger chances (11–6), a performance that made the scoreline inevitable rather than lucky.

Ottawa dominated shot quality throughout. They held 52% of shot attempts (32–30) but where they truly separated themselves was in the scoring chances generated—0.087 xG per shot versus Tampa's 0.053. The Lightning underperformed their xG by 1.05 goals, a reflection of both poor execution and solid Ottawa defense. L. Ullmark stopped 28 of 30 attempts at 0.933 SV%, the primary architect of that advantage.

The game's turning point came on Shane Pinto's high-slot wrist shot at 16:41 of the third period.

Ottawa's special teams gave them the cleanest edge. They converted 2 power-play goals on 10 shots—well above their 0.94 xG on the man advantage, a demonstration of high-leverage execution. Ottawa also thrived in transition, scoring 4 goals on 32 rush attempts, while Tampa managed just 2 on 20, a gap that turned dominance into a rout.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 7
TBL
2
OTT
6

Senators run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.0 – 5.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
3.05
OTT
5.48
36% of the chances64%

The board read TBL 2, OTT 6. The chances read TBL 3.0, OTT 5.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+0.5
goals above expected
OTT5.48 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL3.05 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 15:46OTTJ. Spence0–1
  2. P2 18:23TBLN. Paul1–1
  3. P3 02:45OTTF. Zetterlund1–2
  4. P3 04:39OTTJ. Sanderson1–3
  5. P3 10:35TBLC. Perry2–3
  6. P3 12:51OTTT. StützlePP2–4
  7. P3 13:04OTTJ. SandersonPP2–5
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
44 shots
2
Final
95 shots
OTT
51 shots
6
TBL attackOTT attack
TBL OTT Goal
44
shots · 2 in
51
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLOTT
1 / 6
1.37 xG
High danger
3 / 11
3.19 xG
1 / 8
0.93 xG
Medium
2 / 15
1.66 xG
0 / 44
0.75 xG
Low
1 / 37
0.64 xG

The Senators buried 3 of 11 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
L. Ullmark
+1.1
OTT · 28/30
B
J. Johansson
+0.5
TBL · 26/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 11–7no goals
    2ndshots 7–12
    1. 15:46OTTJ. Spence(B. Tkachuk, T. Stützle)0–1
    2. 18:23TBLN. Paul(C. Perry, N. Kucherov)1–1
    3rdshots 12–13
    1. 02:45OTTF. Zetterlund(B. Tkachuk, C. Crotty)1–2
    2. 04:39OTTJ. Sanderson(T. Stützle, B. Tkachuk)1–3
    3. 10:35TBLC. Perry(R. McDonagh, N. Paul)2–3
    4. 12:51OTTT. Stützlepower play(D. Cozens, D. Batherson)2–4
    5. 13:04OTTJ. Sandersonpower play(B. Tkachuk, D. Batherson)2–5
    6. 16:41OTTS. Pintoempty net2–6

    score reads TBL–OTT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.48
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.5
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.061
    OTT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    52.1%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.05Expected goals5.48
    OTT 64% of the chance quality
    30Shots on goal32
    6High-danger chances11
    58All attempts (Corsi)63
    Adjusted for score: TBL 50% · OTT 50%
    Faceoffs · OTT won43%off31%neu38%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TBL1 / 6 · 1.37 xG
    OTT3 / 11 · 3.19 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TBL1 / 8 · 0.93 xG
    OTT2 / 15 · 1.66 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TBL0 / 44 · 0.75 xG
    OTT1 / 37 · 0.64 xG

    TBL went 0-for-44 from low danger on 0.75 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TBL
    2 G · 3.05 xG · -1.1
    OTT
    6 G · 5.48 xG · +0.5
    01234567

    TBL finished -1.1 against expected, OTT +0.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TBL
    WRIST0/20
    SLAP0/9
    BACKHAND1/5
    TIP IN1/6
    SNAP0/4
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/14
    OTT
    WRIST4/26
    SLAP0/8
    BACKHAND2/6
    TIP IN0/3
    SNAP0/5
    DEFLECTED0/2
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/12
    TBL
    OTT
    Off the rush
    2 G on 20
    1.84 xG
    4 G on 32
    4.20 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 7
    0.66 xG
    1 G on 6
    0.77 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 0-for-20, OTT 4-for-26. OTT scored 4 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. Johansson
    TBL · 26/31 · .839
    +0.5
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger3/113.2+0.2
    Medium2/151.7-0.3
    Low1/370.6-0.4

    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

    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 28/30 · .933
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.4+0.4
    Medium1/80.9-0.1
    Low0/440.8+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

    95 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TBL
    44 shots
    2
    Final
    95 shots
    OTT
    51 shots
    6
    TBL attackOTT attack
    TBL OTT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, OTT 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
    B. Tkachuk
    #7 · L · OTT
    0 G · 4 A · 3 SOG · 16:42 on ice · +1
    T. Stützle
    #18 · C · OTT
    1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 18:31 on ice
    J. Sanderson
    #85 · D · OTT
    2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 24:08 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Apr 7
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:40 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 TBL 2.4 - 2.6 OTT result with the Senators at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Both teams show identical 5v5 Corsi% at 53.0%, suggesting roughly balanced possession. The real divergence emerges in scoring efficiency. Ottawa's 56.0% xG% beats Tampa Bay's 54.0%, indicating the Senators generate higher-quality chances. But this advantage is tempered by luck: the Lightning's 1.019 PDO reflects hot shooting and overperformance, while Ottawa's 0.993 PDO suggests they're due for positive regression.

    Goaltending creates a structural edge for the Senators. A. Vasilevskiy is on a back-to-back, opening the possibility of fatigue or a backup start, either of which favors Ottawa.

    Brandon Hagel powers the Lightning's offense. His 1.10 xG/60 leads the team; his 15.8% shooting rate (23 goals and 26 assists) suggests unsustainable conversion. Anthony Cirelli rounds out the threat with 0.95 xG/60 and 5 high-danger goals—dangerous in the scoring areas Tampa needs him most. Victor Hedman represents the defensive weak link the Senators can attack.

    Brady Tkachuk counters with 1.19 xG/60, topping Hagel's workload. His 7.5% shooting rate on 11 goals and 20 assists indicates he's converting well below his talent level—a sign of either variance or just-beginning regression. Dylan Cozens provides secondary pressure at 1.00 xG/60, though his 9.5% shooting rate suggests room for improvement. Nick Jensen emerges as the defensive liability Tampa could exploit.

    Both teams generate 0% of their scoring from high-danger situations and 0% from rebounds—a quirk suggesting either elite goaltending or misdirected offensive execution.

    The verdict: Ottawa's superior expected-goals share and favorable goaltending matchup edge the Senators, but the tightness of the model and Tampa Bay's surging PDO keep this genuinely uncertain. 53% is the right number.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 53%
    53%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    TBL50OTT

    OTT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.4–2.6 OTT; 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
    TBL← edge
    edge →OTT
    54.0%56.0%
    53.0%53.0%
    2.672.66
    2.282.12
    2.382.18
    1.851.99
    1.0190.993

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.993) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    TBL
    6-2-2
    +7 GD · 1d rest
    OTT
    6-3-1
    +3 GD · 2d rest
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • A. Vasilevskiy 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
    TBL
    Expected in goal
    A. Vasilevskiy
    back-to-back.897 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.

    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Ullmark
    2 days rest.893 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next