Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
← Wed, Apr 15 · the slate
Breakdown · DET at FLA

D. Tarasov stands tall as the Panthers edge the Red Wings

FinalWed, Apr 15
DETDetroit Red Wings1FLAFlorida Panthers8
The verdict · coin flip

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

DET 1 · FLA 8
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:54 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 scoreboard lied. Panthers 8, Red Wings 1 — a blowout that masked a close underlying game. Expected goals ran 3.47–3.72, a slim Red Wings advantage, yet the Panthers won by seven. The discrepancy wasn't chaos; it was D. Tarasov.

D. Tarasov made 25 of 26 saves, 2.72 goals above expected. That is elite. Detroit's tandem imploded: J. Gibson stopped 11 of 15 (2.14 worse than expected), and C. Talbot saved 9 of 13 (2.39 under). The Panthers converted everything; the Red Wings squandered their chances. Detroit went 0 for 7 on high-danger opportunities and created five rebound chances without converting one. The Panthers scored from two low-danger spots — the goalie tax paid twice over.

Florida's efficiency centered on rush play. They buried 5 goals in 29 rush chances, a conversion rate that won't sustain, but it did on this night. Off the rush and off the rebound, they found a rhythm Detroit couldn't match.

The Panthers overperformed their expected goals by 4.53 — elite finishing or puck luck, probably both. Detroit underperformed by 2.72, wasted quality entirely. Variance explains the margin. D. Tarasov explains why Florida escaped with a seven-goal lead instead of a one-goal scare.

The turning point arrived early: L. Kunin's wrist shot from the high slot at 18:12 of the first period. Two more followed from L. Kunin (plus one assist), along with two from M. Benning and two assists from M. Alscher. That was enough to bury Detroit.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 15
DET
1
FLA
8

D. Tarasov stands tall as the Panthers edge the Red Wings

Chances 3.7 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Panthers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
3.72
FLA
3.47
52% of the chances48%

The board read DET 1, FLA 8. The chances read DET 3.7, FLA 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
+4.5
goals above expected
FLA3.47 expected · 8 scored
Expected
Scored
DET3.72 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers scored 4.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 04:57FLAV. Hinostroza0–1
  2. P2 05:37FLAL. Kunin0–2
  3. P2 08:56FLAA. GreerPP0–3
  4. P2 09:39FLAM. Benning0–4
  5. P2 12:41FLAM. Benning0–5
  6. P2 16:12DETJ. Faulk1–5
  7. P3 08:56FLAC. Schwindt1–6
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
41 shots
1
Final
83 shots
FLA
42 shots
8
DET attackFLA attack
DET FLA Goal
41
shots · 1 in
42
shots · 8 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETFLA
0 / 7
1.95 xG
High danger
2 / 6
1.36 xG
0 / 10
1.04 xG
Medium
4 / 16
1.63 xG
1 / 42
0.73 xG
Low
2 / 29
0.48 xG

The Red Wings went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Tarasov
+2.7
FLA · 25/26
D
J. Gibson
−0.5
DET · 11/15
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

D. Tarasov stands tall as the Panthers edge the Red Wings

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 7–6
  1. 04:57FLAV. Hinostroza(W. Skoog)0–1
2ndshots 7–14
  1. 05:37FLAL. Kunin(M. Tkachuk, M. Alscher)0–2
  2. 08:56FLAA. Greerpower play(N. Gregor, L. Jansson)0–3
  3. 09:39FLAM. Benning(W. Skoog, E. Luostarinen)0–4
  4. 12:41FLAM. Benning(D. Sebrango, M. Samoskevich)0–5
  5. 16:12DETJ. Faulk(A. DeBrincat, B. Chiarot)1–5
3rdshots 12–8
  1. 08:56FLAC. Schwindt(M. Alscher, M. Hovorka)1–6
  2. 09:37FLAC. Reinhardt(L. Kunin, M. Tkachuk)1–7
  3. 18:12FLAL. Kunin(C. Reinhardt)1–8

score reads DET–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.47
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+4.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.140
FLA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.72Expected goals3.47
DET 52% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal28
7High-danger chances6
59All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: DET 60% · FLA 40%
Faceoffs · FLA won17%off53%neu39%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DET0 / 7 · 1.95 xG
FLA2 / 6 · 1.36 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DET0 / 10 · 1.04 xG
FLA4 / 16 · 1.63 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DET1 / 42 · 0.73 xG
FLA2 / 29 · 0.48 xG

FLA went 4-for-16 from medium danger on 1.63 expected goals — 2.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DET
1 G · 3.72 xG · -2.7
FLA
8 G · 3.47 xG · +4.5
0123456789

DET finished -2.7 against expected, FLA +4.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DET
SNAP0/23
SLAP0/8
WRIST1/3
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
TIP IN0/2
POKE0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/18
FLA
SNAP4/30
SLAP0/1
WRIST2/5
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED1/2
TIP IN0/0
POKE0/0
WRAP AROUND1/1
OTHER0/9
DET
FLA
Off the rush
1 G on 26
2.47 xG
5 G on 29
2.35 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
1.12 xG
2 G on 4
0.84 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: DET went 0-for-23, FLA 4-for-30. FLA scored 5 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. Gibson
DET · 11/15 · .733
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/61.4-0.6
Medium4/161.6-2.4
Low2/290.5-1.5

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

C. Talbot
DET · 9/13 · .692
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/61.4-0.6
Medium4/161.6-2.4
Low2/290.5-1.5

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

D. Tarasov
FLA · 25/26 · .962
+2.7
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.9+1.9
Medium0/101.0+1.0
Low1/420.7-0.3

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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DET
41 shots
1
Final
83 shots
FLA
42 shots
8
DET attackFLA attack
DET FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET left, FLA 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
L. Kunin
#71 · C · FLA
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 18:32 on ice · +2
M. Benning
#20 · D · FLA
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 21:34 on ice · +2
M. Alscher
#4 · D · FLA
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:33 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Apr 15
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:04 PMEdited 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 Panthers sit at 52% win probability in the model's projection—a 2.5-2.6 expected final. This is as close to a true pick'em as you'll find.

Both teams are treading water. The Panthers have surrendered a −9 goal differential over their last ten games; the Red Wings are at −6. Recent form suggests neither has figured anything out.

The season-long picture, though, hints at something different. Detroit and Florida have identical expected-goals rates at 49.0%, but the Panthers drive play at 52.0% Corsi while the Red Wings manage 49.0%. That territorial advantage is real—Florida will likely own the puck. Neither team has found much luck relative to shot quality: Detroit's PDO sits at 0.985, Florida's at 0.989, both suggesting regression toward the mean could cut either way.

The edges are thin. Florida's territorial advantage might press Detroit's depth, or Detroit's parity in chance creation could catch up. Sample-size constraints apply here; neither team's form is stable enough to read as predictive.

Alex DeBrincat carries Detroit's load at 0.88 expected goals per sixty and a 9.0% shooting rate on 17 goals. Behind him, Marco Kasper operates at 0.81 xG/60 but converts just 6.1% of his chances—seven goals total. The disparity in shooting percentage matters; whether Kasper's efficiency corrects upward is one of the game's levers.

Florida's setup is more balanced. Sam Bennett (0.97 xG/60, 18 goals, 13.1% shooting) and Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 17 goals) generate more dangerous looks. Marchand's 19.5% shooting rate is worth noting; at that clip, even a regression downward leaves him dangerous. Bennett's six high-danger goals underscore his propensity to finish.

The real test: whether Detroit's parity in chance creation can overcome Florida's territorial edge, and whether Florida's advantage in conversion (Bennett and Marchand's elevated shooting rates) holds or normalizes. The model calls it a coin flip. The underlying data agrees.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 52%
52%
FLA
Model favorite
48%
52%
DET50FLA

FLA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DET 2.5–2.6 FLA; 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 →FLA
49.0%49.0%
49.0%52.0%
2.382.48
2.502.56
1.731.98
2.072.21
0.9850.989

FLA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.989) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DET
3-5-2
-6 GD · 2d rest
FLA
4-5-1
-9 GD · 2d rest
0.985
DET PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Panthers are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Red Wings are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
DET
Expected in goal
C. Talbot
2 days rest.818 last start
Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

FLA
Expected in goal
D. Tarasov
2 days rest.926 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page