Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
← Thu, Apr 9 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at MTL

Canadiens run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Apr 9
TBLTampa Bay Lightning1MTLMontreal Canadiens2
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 1 · MTL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:01 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's 2-1 win understates their dominance: they controlled 68% of 5v5 expected goals (4.63–2.17), held 54% of shot attempts on goal (21–18), and landed nine high-danger chances to Tampa's four.

The Canadiens underperformed their xG by 2.63 goals, wasting their underlying dominance. A. Vasilevskiy mitigated that waste: 19 of 21 saves at 0.905 SV%, stopping 2.63 goals above expected. J. Dobes (MTL) was nearly as sharp—17 of 18 at 0.944 SV%, 1.17 above expected.

Tampa generated higher-quality looks than their shot volume suggested, but the gulf in 5v5 possession was vast. Montreal was lethal off the rush: they scored twice on 30 chances.

The pivot came in the third period. Juraj Slafkovský's snap shot from the doorstep at 18:56 gave Montreal breathing room—a clinical finish that reflected the team's sustained control.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 9
TBL
1
MTL
2

Canadiens run the Lightning off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.2 – 4.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
2.17
MTL
4.63
32% of the chances68%

The board read TBL 1, MTL 2. The chances read TBL 2.2, MTL 4.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
−2.6
goals above expected
MTL4.63 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL2.17 expected · 1 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 06:30MTLC. Caufield0–1
  2. P3 18:09TBLD. RaddyshPP1–1
  3. P3 18:56MTLJ. Slafkovský1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
27 shots
1
Final
70 shots
MTL
43 shots
2
TBL attackMTL attack
TBL MTL Goal
27
shots · 1 in
43
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLMTL
0 / 4
0.85 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.08 xG
1 / 11
1.07 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.93 xG
0 / 21
0.26 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.63 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Vasilevskiy
+2.6
TBL · 19/21
B+
J. Dobes
+1.2
MTL · 17/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens 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 3–8no goals
    2ndshots 7–8
    1. 06:30MTLC. Caufield(N. Suzuki, J. Slafkovský)0–1
    3rdshots 8–5
    1. 18:09TBLD. Raddyshpower play(N. Kucherov, G. Goncalves)1–1
    2. 18:56MTLJ. Slafkovský(N. Suzuki)1–2

    score reads TBL–MTL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.63
    MTL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.6
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.006
    MTL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    62.1%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.17Expected goals4.63
    MTL 68% of the chance quality
    18Shots on goal21
    4High-danger chances9
    36All attempts (Corsi)59
    Adjusted for score: TBL 40% · MTL 60%
    Faceoffs · MTL won50%off50%neu57%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TBL0 / 4 · 0.85 xG
    MTL1 / 9 · 2.08 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TBL1 / 11 · 1.07 xG
    MTL1 / 16 · 1.93 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TBL0 / 21 · 0.26 xG
    MTL0 / 34 · 0.63 xG

    MTL went 1-for-9 from high danger on 2.08 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TBL
    1 G · 2.17 xG · -1.2
    MTL
    2 G · 4.63 xG · -2.6
    012345

    TBL finished -1.2 against expected, MTL -2.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TBL
    SNAP1/22
    SLAP0/1
    TIP IN0/2
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRIST0/0
    OTHER0/9
    MTL
    SNAP2/29
    SLAP0/5
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRIST0/1
    OTHER0/16
    TBL
    MTL
    Off the rush
    0 G on 15
    1.64 xG
    2 G on 30
    3.51 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.20 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.29 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 1-for-22, MTL 2-for-29. 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
    A. Vasilevskiy
    TBL · 19/21 · .905
    +2.6
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/92.1+1.1
    Medium1/161.9+0.9
    Low0/340.6+0.6

    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. Dobes
    MTL · 17/18 · .944
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.8+0.8
    Medium1/111.1+0.1
    Low0/210.3+0.3

    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

    70 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TBL
    27 shots
    1
    Final
    70 shots
    MTL
    43 shots
    2
    TBL attackMTL attack
    TBL MTL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, MTL 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
    N. Suzuki
    #14 · C · MTL
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 22:25 on ice · +1
    J. Slafkovský
    #20 · L · MTL
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:23 on ice · +1
    N. Kucherov
    #86 · R · TBL
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:12 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Apr 9
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:46 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 Tampa Bay to win 2.6-2.5, giving the Lightning 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Montreal enters riding a 9-1-0 stretch, the hotter team by points pace. But the underlying data favors Tampa. The Lightning dominate at 5v5 with 54.0% expected goals against Montreal's 48.0%, and control 53.0% of shot attempts to the Canadiens' 49.0%. Expect a territorial tilt firmly in the visitors' favor.

    Both teams are running hot by PDO—Tampa at 1.019, Montreal at 1.018—which means regression is lurking for both. That's the real story underneath the streak.

    Brandon Hagel carries Tampa's offense at 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes, backed by 23 goals and 26 assists on a 15.8% shooting rate. Anthony Cirelli operates at 0.95 xG/60 with 15 goals, 18 assists, and a 17.0% clip.

    Cole Caufield is Montreal's primary threat. At 0.97 xG/60 with 33 goals and 16 assists on 20.0% shooting, he's the most dangerous player on the ice. Oliver Kapanen runs 0.83 xG/60 with 19 goals and 12 assists at 17.8% shooting.

    The structural edge belongs to Tampa: territorial dominance forces Montreal to defend constantly. Victor Hedman becomes the pressure point on Tampa's back end; Montreal will hunt him. Mike Matheson shoulders equivalent burden and will absorb relentless Hagel and Cirelli possession time.

    What makes this a genuine coin flip is Montreal's hot streak offsetting Tampa's superior process. Both Caufield and Hagel are shooting unsustainably high. The Canadiens' recency tilt against a fundamentally superior opponent creates genuine uncertainty. The Lightning own the data, but variance runs high enough to justify the pick'em spread.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 53%
    53%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    TBL50MTL

    TBL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.6–2.5 MTL; 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 →MTL
    54.0%48.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.672.41
    2.282.62
    2.382.24
    1.851.96
    1.0191.018

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.018) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    TBL
    5-3-2
    +0 GD · 2d rest
    MTL
    9-1-0
    +16 GD · 2d rest
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.018
    MTL 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 Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — 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 Canadiens are the hotter team by points pace (9-1-0 in their last 10).
    • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    TBL
    Expected in goal
    J. Johansson
    2 days rest.839 last start
    Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    MTL
    Expected in goal
    J. Dobes
    2 days rest.909 last start
    Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page