Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater
← Tue, Sep 22 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at NSH · Preseason

Predators edge the Lightning in overtime

Final / OTTue, Sep 22
TBLTampa Bay Lightning2NSHNashville Predators3
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 2 · NSH 3
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 10:45 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Raw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Predators edged the Lightning 3-2 in overtime in a game the underlying numbers called close to even — expected goals split 3.23–2.82, a slight edge to the Predators.

The numbers behind the result. The Predators held 49% of shot attempts (26–27 on goal). Expected goals finished 3.23–2.82 (53–47% split), and high-danger chances went 2–3.

Variance watch. The Lightning underperformed their xG by 0.82 goals.

Turning point. Felix Nilsson's wrist shot from the slot, at 02:33 of overtime.

Goaltending

  • D. Hildeby (TBL): 23/26 saves, 0.885 SV%
  • J. Annunen (NSH): 25/27 saves, 0.926 SV% (+0.82 vs expected)

Storylines

  • NSH was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 25 rush chances.
  • TBL was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 25 rush chances.
  • NSH created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.

Final: TBL 2 – NSH 3 (OT)

Data: NHL API, MoneyPuck xG model

Goals

  • P2 03:44 — TBL J. Viel (Z. Girgensons) → 1-0
  • P3 04:54 — TBL J. Viel (P. Holmberg, T. Kralovic) → 2-0
  • P3 13:30 — NSH M. Wood (R. Ufko, R. Josi) → 2-1
  • P3 17:41 — NSH M. Wood (J. Ahcan) → 2-2
  • OT 02:33 — NSH F. Nilsson (unassisted) → 2-3
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Preseason · Sep 22
TBL
2
NSH
3

Predators edge the Lightning in overtime

Chances 2.8 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
2.82
NSH
3.23
47% of the chances53%

The board read TBL 2, NSH 3. The chances read TBL 2.8, NSH 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NSH
−0.2
goals above expected
NSH3.23 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL2.82 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 03:44TBLJ. Viel1–0
  2. P3 04:54TBLJ. Viel2–0
  3. P3 13:30NSHM. Wood2–1
  4. P3 17:41NSHM. Wood2–2
  5. OT 02:33NSHF. Nilsson2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
35 shots
2
Final
75 shots
NSH
40 shots
3
TBL attackNSH attack
TBL NSH Goal
35
shots · 2 in
40
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLNSH
1 / 3
0.67 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.44 xG
1 / 17
1.79 xG
Medium
3 / 21
2.25 xG
0 / 27
0.36 xG
Low
0 / 32
0.54 xG

High-danger looks: TBL 1 of 3, NSH 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Annunen
+0.8
NSH · 25/27
C
D. Hildeby
+0.2
TBL · 23/26
Report card
TBLNSH
OffenseB-B
DefenseD+C-
TransitionCC
Special teamsFF
GoaltendingC+B
DisciplineC-B-
LuckC-B-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why NSH won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02J. Annunen tilted the crease
  3. 03M. Wood led the way
Why TBL lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 030-for-1 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.00 PP xG.
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Predators edge the Lightning 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 / 10 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 7–5no goals
    2ndshots 11–9
    1. 03:44TBLJ. Viel(Z. Girgensons)1–0
    3rdshots 9–11
    1. 04:54TBLJ. Viel(P. Holmberg, T. Kralovic)2–0
    2. 13:30NSHM. Wood(R. Ufko, R. Josi)2–1
    3. 17:41NSHM. Wood(J. Ahcan)2–2
    OTshots 0–1
    1. 02:33NSHF. Nilsson2–3

    score reads TBL–NSH

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.23
    NSH chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.012
    NSH puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    53.9%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.82Expected goals3.23
    NSH 53% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal26
    3High-danger chances2
    47All attempts (Corsi)55
    Adjusted for score: TBL 43% · NSH 57%
    Faceoffs · NSH won47%off39%neu44%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TBL1 / 3 · 0.67 xG
    NSH0 / 2 · 0.44 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TBL1 / 17 · 1.79 xG
    NSH3 / 21 · 2.25 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TBL0 / 27 · 0.36 xG
    NSH0 / 32 · 0.54 xG

    TBL went 1-for-17 from medium danger on 1.79 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 · 2.82 xG · -0.8
    NSH
    3 G · 3.23 xG · -0.2
    01234

    TBL finished -0.8 against expected, NSH -0.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TBL
    WRIST2/23
    TIP IN0/2
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/12
    NSH
    WRIST2/30
    TIP IN1/5
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/15
    TBL
    NSH
    Off the rush
    2 G on 25
    2.16 xG
    2 G on 25
    2.11 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.10 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.31 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-23, NSH 2-for-30. 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
    D. Hildeby
    TBL · 23/26 · .885
    +0.2
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium3/212.3-0.8
    Low0/320.5+0.5

    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

    J. Annunen
    NSH · 25/27 · .926
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.7-0.3
    Medium1/171.8+0.8
    Low0/270.4+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

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionTBLNSH
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    TBL Created 2.82 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.67 xG) and 25 rush shots (2.16 xG).

    NSH Created 3.23 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.44 xG) and 25 rush shots (2.11 xG).

    B-
    80
    B
    83
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    TBL Allowed 3.23 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.44 xG) and 25 rush shots (2.11 xG).

    NSH Allowed 2.82 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.67 xG) and 25 rush shots (2.16 xG).

    D+
    67
    C-
    70
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    TBL Rush shots 25–25, rush xG 2.16–2.11 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    NSH Rush shots 25–25, rush xG 2.11–2.16 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    C
    76
    C
    74
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    TBL 0-for-1 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.00 PP xG.

    NSH 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.48 PP xG.

    F
    48
    F
    58
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    TBL +0.23 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.

    NSH +0.82 goals saved above expected on 27 shots against.

    C+
    77
    B
    83
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

    TBL Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.

    NSH Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

    C-
    70
    B-
    80
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    TBL Finishing -0.82 goals vs xG plus +0.23 GSAx of save luck = -0.59 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    NSH Finishing -0.23 goals vs xG plus +0.82 GSAx of save luck = +0.59 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    C-
    70
    B-
    80
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    WARNINGNSH

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 25 rush shots worth 2.16 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

    Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

    WARNINGTBL

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 25 rush shots worth 2.11 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

    Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

    STRENGTHTBL

    Dangerous off the rush

    2 goals on 25 rush shots worth 2.16 xG.

    STRENGTHNSH

    Dangerous off the rush

    2 goals on 25 rush shots worth 2.11 xG.

    TACTICALNSH

    The moment it turned

    Felix Nilsson's wrist shot from the slot in overtime swung the game.

    STRENGTHNSH

    M. Wood led the way

    2G in 19:54 — the game's first star.

    75 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TBL
    35 shots
    2
    Final
    75 shots
    NSH
    40 shots
    3
    TBL attackNSH attack
    TBL NSH Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, NSH 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
    M. Wood
    #71 · R · NSH
    2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 19:54 on ice · +1
    J. Viel
    #25 · L · TBL
    2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 14:29 on ice · +1
    R. Josi
    #59 · D · NSH
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 25:54 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Sep 22
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    Preseason · exhibition

    Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The rates below are last season's; this exhibition will not count toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

    ◆ By the ModelSep 21, 11:43 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 model projects a 3.3-3.1 Lightning win with 52% win probability—a pick'em wrapped in a single percentage point.

    Tampa Bay dominates the underlying play. Their 53.7% expected-goal share at 5v5 versus Nashville's 48.7% means they should control territory, and their 53.0% Corsi% confirms it. But the Lightning are riding a 1.019 PDO—luck that doesn't hold. Expect regression.

    The goalie matchup is the fulcrum. Andrei Vasilevskiy has been a wall for Tampa: +18.3 goals saved above expected over 58 games with a 0.912 save percentage—elite margin. Juuse Saros has bled the opposite direction—minus-13.6 GSAx over 59 games—which means Nashville's underlying chance creation matters less if he can't hold it.

    Brandon Hagel drives Tampa's offense. He's posted 23 goals and 26 assists while generating 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes and converting at 15.8%—a sign of both volume and discipline. Anthony Cirelli sits just behind: 15 goals, 18 assists, 0.95 xG/60, 5 high-danger goals, and a 17.0% shooting rate that marks him as one of Tampa's most dangerous finishers.

    Nashville counters with Filip Forsberg—23 goals, 17 assists, 0.80 xG/60, a 13.6% shooting rate—and Zachary L'Heureux, a younger wing generating 0.85 xG/60 who is starved of finishing chances: 4 goals, 0 assists, 1 high-danger goal. The gap between opportunity and result is where Nashville's season lives.

    The edge is Tampa's. They generate better underlying play, have elite goaltending, and can finish. But the Lightning are running hot, and a Predators squad that creates decent chances can break through on a good Saros night. The model can't split it, and neither should you.

    Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 52%
    52%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    TBL50NSH

    TBL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 3.3–3.1 NSH; 16% 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 →NSH
    53.7%48.7%
    53.0%49.5%
    3.383.09
    2.923.24
    3.492.95
    2.793.26
    1.0190.992

    TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.992) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 1
    TBL
    1-0-0
    +1 GD · 2d rest
    NSH
    0-1-0
    -1 GD · 2d rest
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.992
    NSH PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    STRENGTHTBL

    Andrei Vasilevskiy has been a season-long wall

    Andrei Vasilevskiy: +18.3 GSAx over 58 games (0.912 SV%).

    WARNINGNSH

    Juuse Saros has leaked goals all season

    Juuse Saros: -13.6 GSAx over 59 games.

    Shoot from everywhere — volume beats a cold crease.

    TACTICALNSH

    Shutdown Assignment: Predators

    Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Hagel (23G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Hagel (23G, 1.10 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

    TACTICALTBL

    Shutdown Assignment: Lightning

    Key matchup: Neutralize Zachary L'Heureux (4G, 0.85 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Zachary L'Heureux (4G, 0.85 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

    Where the edges live
    • The Lightning own the underlying play — 53.7% 5v5 xG vs 48.7%.
    • 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 — 53.7% 5v5 xG vs 48.7%.
    • 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
    TBL
    Expected in goal
    A. Vasilevskiy
    2 days rest.923 last start
    Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +18.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    NSH
    Expected in goal
    J. Saros
    2 days rest.909 last start
    Backup Juuse Saros · -13.6 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
    NSH
    Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
    0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
    Filip Forsberg23G 17A
    0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page