Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · DET at TBL

Lightning edge the Red Wings in overtime

Final / OTMon, Apr 13

DETDetroit Red Wings3 TBLTampa Bay Lightning4

The verdict · coin flip

The Lightning won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

DET 3 · TBL 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:29 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

Expected goals called this a coin flip. At 3.00–3.06, the metrics slightly favored Detroit—yet Tampa Bay won 4–3 on Nikita Kucherov's overtime goal. The Lightning overperformed their xG by a full goal, turning near parity into a win.

The difference lived in execution. Tampa converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances (50%), while Detroit produced 3 rebounds—all unconverted despite reaching the blue paint. The Lightning's rush attack was more lethal: two goals on 22 rush chances against 0 for Detroit.

Goaltending mattered less than efficiency. Cam Talbot (18/22, 0.818 SV%) fell one save short of expected; Andrei Vasilevskiy (27/30, 0.900) delivered when it counted. The underlying metrics say this game was even. The scoreboard says otherwise—because Tampa Bay finished its chances and Detroit didn't.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Apr 13

DET

TBL

Lightning edge the Red Wings in overtime

Chances 3.1 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Lightning took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

DET

3.06

TBL

3.00

51% of the chances50%

The board read DET 3, TBL 4. The chances read DET 3.1, TBL 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

TBL

+1.0

goals above expected

TBL3.00 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

DET3.06 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

P1 05:31DETD. Perron1–0
P1 17:05TBLC. Geekie1–1
P2 15:53TBLE. Cernak1–2
P2 18:03TBLJ. Guentzel1–3
P3 02:56DETM. Kasper2–3
P3 15:16DETA. DeBrincat3–3
OT 00:27TBLN. Kucherov3–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

DET

44 shots

Final

78 shots

TBL

34 shots

DET TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DETTBL

0 / 3

0.78 xG

High danger

2 / 4

1.04 xG

3 / 13

1.68 xG

Medium

2 / 11

1.41 xG

0 / 43

0.60 xG

Low

0 / 31

0.55 xG

The Red Wings went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A. Vasilevskiy

+0.1

TBL · 27/30

D-

C. Talbot

−1.0

DET · 18/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning edge the Red Wings in overtime

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 14–8

05:31DETD. Perron(J. Compher, B. Chiarot)1–0
17:05TBLC. Geekie(O. Bjorkstrand)1–1

2ndshots 6–11

15:53TBLE. Cernak(R. McDonagh, Z. Girgensons)1–2
18:03TBLJ. Guentzel(N. Kucherov, J. Moser)1–3

3rdshots 9–2

02:56DETM. Kasper(J. van Riemsdyk, J. Faulk)2–3
15:16DETA. DeBrincat(P. Kane)3–3

OTshots 1–1

00:27TBLN. Kucherov(B. Point)3–4

score reads DET–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.00

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.036

TBL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

43.8%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.06Expected goals3.00

DET 51% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal22

3High-danger chances4

59All attempts (Corsi)46

Adjusted for score: DET 57% · TBL 43%

Faceoffs · TBL won41%off40%neu42%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DET0 / 3 · 0.78 xG

TBL2 / 4 · 1.04 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DET3 / 13 · 1.68 xG

TBL2 / 11 · 1.41 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DET0 / 43 · 0.60 xG

TBL0 / 31 · 0.55 xG

DET went 3-for-13 from medium danger on 1.68 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DET

3 G · 3.06 xG · -0.1

TBL

4 G · 3.00 xG · +1.0

012345

DET finished -0.1 against expected, TBL +1.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DET

WRIST1/24

SNAP1/9

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND1/1

OTHER0/15

TBL

WRIST3/8

SNAP1/17

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/1

BACKHAND0/2

OTHER0/12

DET

TBL

Off the rush

1 G on 24

2.22 xG

2 G on 22

2.19 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.21 xG

0 G on 1

0.20 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 1-for-24, TBL 3-for-8. 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

C. Talbot

DET · 18/22 · .818

-1.0

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/41.0-1.0

Medium2/111.4-0.6

Low0/310.6+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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 27/30 · .900

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.8+0.8

Medium3/131.7-1.3

Low0/430.6+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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DET

44 shots

Final

78 shots

TBL

34 shots

DET TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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

N. Kucherov

#86 · R · TBL

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 16:29 on ice

J. Moser

#90 · D · TBL

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:10 on ice · +2

J. Guentzel

#59 · C · TBL

1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 21:29 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Apr 13

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 a 2.3–2.7 goal game with Tampa Bay at 57% win probability. This is a modest edge in a tight contest.

Tampa arrives hot. The Lightning went 5–4–1 over their last ten while Detroit collapsed to -6 goal differential in the same span. One team riding momentum, one in freefall.

The underlying play sharpens the picture. At 5v5, Tampa owns 54.0% expected goals and 53.0% Corsi percentage compared to Detroit's 49.0% in both categories. The Lightning control territory and generate chances at a higher rate. Expect Tampa to press through the neutral zone and force Detroit into reactive retreats.

There's a constraint: Tampa's PDO sits at 1.019, running hot through conversion and goaltending luck. PDO regression is inevitable. Detroit's 0.985 sits on the opposite end—slightly cold. These tend to normalize over time, meaning Tampa could face a deflating night where their puck luck inverts within a single game.

Tampa's offensive load rests on Brandon Hagel and Anthony Cirelli. Hagel carries 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes with 23 goals and 26 assists, paired with 15.8% shooting on high-danger chances—that efficiency will eventually regress. Cirelli (0.95 xG/60, 15 goals, 18 assists) offers similar clinical finishing at 17.0% on five high-danger goals, making him more threatening than his raw totals suggest.

Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat and Marco Kasper. DeBrincat's 28 assists reveal a pass-first game; his 9.0% shooting rate on dangerous looks leaves room for variance. Kasper (0.81 xG/60, 7 goals, 8 assists) remains a young player shooting just 6.1% on dangerous chances—whether that's poor luck or underdeveloped shot selection remains unclear.

Both teams sat at 0% on high-danger and rebound-goal conversion, a floor-level metric that obscures meaningful detail. Watch Axel Sandin-Pellikka (Detroit's defensive weak link) and Victor Hedman (Tampa's defensive vulnerability) for whether that luck holds or shifts.

The model's lean is real but temporary. Tampa's edge rests on structural play that's legitimate and PDO elevation that's not. Detroit's scoring depth and defensive sharpness could easily overcome this margin. Expect low-event hockey where puck possession and neutral-zone discipline decide it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 57%

57%

TBL

Model favorite

43%

57%

DET50TBL

TBL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.3–2.7 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

DET← edge

edge →TBL

49.0%54.0%

49.0%53.0%

2.382.67

2.502.28

1.732.38

2.071.85

0.9851.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.019) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

DET

3-6-1

-6 GD · 2d rest

TBL

5-4-1

-2 GD · 2d rest

0.985

DET 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 49.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Lightning are the hotter team by points pace (5-4-1 in their last 10).
The Red Wings are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DET

Expected in goal

J. Gibson

2 days rest.875 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL

Expected in goal

A. Vasilevskiy

2 days rest.952 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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% 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

Back to the front page