Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Tue, Nov 3 · the slate
Breakdown · DET at TBL

Lightning hold off the Red Wings

FinalTue, Nov 3
DETDetroit Red Wings2TBLTampa Bay Lightning4
The verdict · earned

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

DET 2 · TBL 4
◆ By the ModelNov 3, 9:42 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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 Lightning beat the Red Wings 4-2, and B. Point set the tone by scoring twice in the first period.

Detroit's finishing was the biggest disagreement between the scoreboard and the play. The Red Wings generated 3.19 expected goals, a number that weights each shot by how often it becomes a goal. They scored two. That shortfall of 1.19 goals is the largest gap in the game.

The Lightning controlled 58% of expected goals at five-on-five, so the result reflects the run of play.

A. Vasilevskiy tilted the crease. He stopped 19 of 21 shots and turned away more goals than that workload should have allowed.

For Detroit, D. Tarasov stopped 12 of 13 shots. He also turned away 1.21 more goals than that workload should have allowed.

J. Gibson gave up the first two goals, both scored by B. Point.

The turning point came when J.T. Compher beat A. Vasilevskiy from the high slot on the power play at 05:29 of the third, cutting the lead to one.

The goals

  • TBL 0–1, 07:54 of the first on the power play. B. Point, snap shot from 20 feet, a 17% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Gibson. Assists: N. Kucherov, C. D'Astous. J. Gibson was 474 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • TBL 0–2, 13:01 of the first. B. Point, snap shot from 24 feet, a 20% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Gibson. Assists: N. Kucherov, E. Cernak. J. Gibson was 781 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 12 points.
  • TBL 0–3, 08:41 of the second. A. Cirelli, snap shot from 10 feet, a 22% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Tarasov. Assists: G. Goncalves, J. Moser. 10 seconds after a TBL faceoff win by A. Cirelli. D. Tarasov was 521 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 7 points.
  • DET 1–3, 10:23 of the second. L. Raymond, snap shot from 26 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Vasilevskiy. Assists: J. Compher. Win probability moved 7 points.
  • DET 2–3, 05:29 of the third on the power play. J. Compher, snap shot from 22 feet, a 19% chance by the model, past A. Vasilevskiy. Assists: A. Copp, J. Faulk. 8 seconds after a DET missed shot by M. Rasmussen. Win probability moved 13 points.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 3
DET
2
TBL
4

Lightning hold off the Red Wings

Chances 3.2 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
3.19
TBL
4.41
42% of the chances58%

The board read DET 2, TBL 4. The chances read DET 3.2, TBL 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−0.4
goals above expected
TBL4.41 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
DET3.19 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
The swing
+15
win-probability points
54% → 69% for TBL
TBL 100%the game, start to finish
DET 100%P1 · P2 · P3
TBLP1 07:54 · PP

B. Point makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 07:54TBLB. PointPP17%0–1
  2. P1 13:01TBLB. Point20%0–2
  3. P2 08:41TBLA. Cirelli22%0–3
  4. P2 10:23DETL. Raymond11%1–3
  5. P3 05:29DETJ. CompherPP19%2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
32 shots
2
Final
77 shots
TBL
45 shots
4
DET attackTBL attack
DET TBL Goal
32
shots · 2 in
45
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Best skater on the ice
A+
TBL
B. Point
C · impact 1.97
18:23
Ice time
2–0
G – A
0.61
Own xG
Impact · top 4
B. Point2.0A+
J. Compher1.7A+
N. Kucherov1.8A+
A. Cirelli1.3A
Report card
DETTBL
OffenseB-A-
DefenseFC-
Special teamsB-A
GoaltendingB+B+
DisciplineB-C-
LuckC+B-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why TBL won
  1. 01A. Vasilevskiy tilted the crease
  2. 02Won on the merits
  3. 03Power play cashed in
Why DET lost
  1. 01Cold finishing night
  2. 02Allowed 4.41 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game.
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning hold off 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 / 10 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 2–13
  1. 07:54TBLB. Pointpower play(N. Kucherov, C. D'Astous)0–1

    Snap shot from 20 feet, a 17% chance (off the rush), past J. Gibson. J. Gibson was 474s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: J. Viel, M. Crozier, G. Goncalves, J. Moser, C. Geekie · against J. Gibson, J. Compher, A. Englund, M. Rasmussen, J. Leonard, A. Johansson

  2. 13:01TBLB. Point(N. Kucherov, E. Cernak)0–2

    Snap shot from 24 feet, a 20% chance (off the rush), past J. Gibson. J. Gibson was 781s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 12 points.On the ice: V. Hedman, J. Viel, M. Crozier, G. Goncalves, C. Geekie · against J. Faulk, J. Gibson, K. Kolesar, S. Dries, W. Wallinder, C. Mazur

2ndshots 6–9
  1. 08:41TBLA. Cirelli(G. Goncalves, J. Moser)0–3

    Snap shot from 10 feet, a 22% chance (off the rush), past D. Tarasov. 10s after a TBL faceoff win by A. Cirelli. D. Tarasov was 521s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 7 points.On the ice: V. Hedman, E. Cernak, J. Viel, G. Goncalves, C. Geekie · against A. Englund, K. Kolesar, D. Tarasov, S. Dries, A. Johansson, M. Brandsegg-Nygård

  2. 10:23DETL. Raymond(J. Compher)1–3

    Snap shot from 26 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past A. Vasilevskiy. Win probability moved 7 points.On the ice: J. Faulk, J. Compher, M. Rasmussen, D. Tarasov, L. Raymond, W. Wallinder · against J. Carlson, A. Cirelli, B. Hagel, C. D'Astous, G. Goncalves

3rdshots 13–5
  1. 05:29DETJ. Compherpower play(A. Copp, J. Faulk)2–3

    Snap shot from 22 feet, a 19% chance, past A. Vasilevskiy. 8s after a DET miss by M. Rasmussen. Win probability moved 13 points.On the ice: B. Chiarot, K. Kolesar, D. Tarasov, S. Dries, J. Leonard, M. Seider · against J. Viel, C. D'Astous, M. Crozier, G. Goncalves, C. Geekie

score reads DET–TBL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.41
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.4
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.19Expected goals4.41
TBL 58% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal27
8High-danger chances8
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DET
2 G · 3.19 xG · -1.2
TBL
4 G · 4.41 xG · -0.4
012345

DET finished -1.2 against expected, TBL -0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
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 · 11/13 · .846
started · 20:00
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night

Team share of attempts · 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
DET · 12/13 · .923
in relief · 36:58
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night

Team share of attempts · 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 · 19/21 · .905
started · 59:51
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night

Team share of attempts · 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

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: B. Point (TBL), 18:23 of ice, 2-0.

DET18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
J. CompherL15:581-1—A+
L. RaymondL19:241-0—A
A. CoppC19:120-1—A
J. FaulkD19:430-1—B
M. RasmussenC15:000-0—B
A. DeBrincatR22:470-0—B
E. FinnieC19:360-0—B
J. LeonardL11:020-0—C
M. SeiderD30:030-0—C
V. ArvidssonL20:360-0—C
K. KolesarR10:340-0—C
A. JohanssonD10:080-0—D
W. WallinderD15:550-0—D
S. DriesC10:210-0—D
A. EnglundD13:510-0—F
C. MazurL8:290-0—F
B. ChiarotD20:300-0—F
M. Brandsegg-NygårdR13:580-0—F
TBL18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
B. PointC18:232-0—A+
N. KucherovR21:400-2—A+
A. CirelliC18:311-0—A
R. McDonaghD17:551-0—A
G. GoncalvesC16:440-1—A
C. D'AstousD18:130-1—B
E. CernakD18:410-1—B
J. MoserD13:580-1—B
I. MikheyevR13:310-0—C
C. GeekieC11:540-0—C
M. CrozierD16:250-0—C
D. JamesC10:330-0—C
J. VielL10:580-0—D
V. HedmanD13:560-0—D
B. HagelL22:050-0—D
P. HolmbergR11:560-0—D
J. CarlsonD16:290-0—D
J. GuentzelC19:300-0—F

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, DET: J. Bernard-Docker, A. Johansson, N. Danielson. Scratched, TBL: Z. Girgensons, S. Sabourin, E. Lilleberg. Referees Trevor Hanson and Corey Syvret; linesmen Travis Gawryletz and Matt MacPherson.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionDETTBL
Offense
▸Basis

DET Created 3.19 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game.

TBL Created 4.41 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game.

B-
80
A-
92
Defense
▸Basis

DET Allowed 4.41 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game.

TBL Allowed 3.19 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game.

F
58
C-
70
Special teams
▸Basis

DET 1-for-4 on the power play (25%; league ≈21%) with 0.83 PP xG.

TBL 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 1.09 PP xG.

B-
81
A
96
Goaltending
▸Basis

DET +1.41 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.

TBL +1.19 goals saved above expected on 21 shots against.

B+
89
B+
87
Discipline
▸Basis

DET Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

TBL Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

B-
80
C-
70
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

DET Finishing -1.19 goals vs xG plus +1.41 GSAx of save luck = +0.22 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

TBL Finishing -0.41 goals vs xG plus +1.19 GSAx of save luck = +0.78 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C+
77
B-
81
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
TACTICALTBL

The moment it turned

J.T. Compher's snap shot from the high slot in P3 swung the game.

STRENGTHDET

D. Tarasov tilted the crease

D. Tarasov stopped 12 of 13 (0.923), +1.21 goals above expected.

STRENGTHTBL

A. Vasilevskiy tilted the crease

A. Vasilevskiy stopped 19 of 21 (0.905), +1.19 goals above expected.

LUCKDET

Cold finishing night

Scored 2 on 3.19 xG — -1.19 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

STRENGTHTBL

N. Kucherov led the way

2A in 21:40 — the game's first star.

STRENGTHTBL

Power play cashed in

1-for-3 on the power play (33%) on 1.09 PP xG.

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DET
32 shots
2
Final
77 shots
TBL
45 shots
4
DET attackTBL attack
DET TBL Goal

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
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 21:40 on ice · +1
B. Point
#21 · C · TBL
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 18:23 on ice · +1
J. Compher
#37 · L · DET
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:58 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page