Backcheck
Recap · DAL at TBL

Lightning run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 11, 1:50 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
DAL
Dallas Stars
1
Home
TBL
Tampa Bay Lightning
2
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.64Expected goals5.24
67% share for the better side
21Shot attempts (SOG)33
3High-danger chances8
45Corsi (all attempts)70
Score-adjusted: 40% / 60%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Tampa Bay controlled 66% of 5v5 expected goals (5.24–2.64), 61% of shot attempts (33–21), and high-danger chances 8–3, yet only won 2–1 in overtime. The margin between dominance and result was goaltending variance.

J. Oettinger saved 3.24 goals above expected—a margin so large it absorbed the entirety of Tampa's underlying advantage. A. Vasilevskiy saved 1.64 above expected, solid work against a relentless offensive assault, but insufficient to steal a game Tampa dominated.

The Lightning generated nearly twice Dallas's expected offensive output and still scored only two goals. This wasn't inefficiency; it was the consequence of facing a goaltender in peak form. Oettinger's overperformance converted a rout into a one-goal game.

Anthony Cirelli's backhander from the doorstep at 02:36 of overtime finally breached Dallas's defense. It was the goal that matched result to underlying play.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DAL0 / 3 · 0.74 xG
TBL2 / 8 · 1.85 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DAL1 / 14 · 1.60 xG
TBL0 / 20 · 2.47 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DAL0 / 28 · 0.30 xG
TBL0 / 42 · 0.92 xG

TBL went 0-for-20 from medium danger on 2.47 expected goals — 2.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DAL
1 G · 2.64 xG · -1.6
TBL
2 G · 5.24 xG · -3.2
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. OettingerDAL
+3.2
A. VasilevskiyTBL
+1.6

DAL finished -1.6 against expected, TBL -3.2 — J. Oettinger (DAL) saved 3.2 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
DAL
SNAP0/12
WRIST0/9
SLAP0/2
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/15
TBL
SNAP0/39
WRIST1/2
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/7
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/12
DAL
TBL
Off the rush
1 G on 17 · 1.83 xG
2 G on 35 · 3.50 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5 · 0.64 xG
0 G on 9 · 1.15 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: DAL went 0-for-12, TBL 0-for-39. TBL scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 23:32 TOI · +1
A. Cirelli
#71 · C · TBL
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:57 TOI · +1
C. D'Astous
#51 · D · TBL
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:53 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • J. Oettinger (DAL) stopped 3.2 goals above expected.
  • TBL was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 35 rush chances.
  • TBL created 9 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • DAL created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • TBL underperformed xG by 3.2 — wasted quality chances.
  • DAL underperformed xG by 1.6 — wasted quality chances.
  • J. Oettinger (DAL) saved 3.2 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • A. Vasilevskiy (TBL) saved 1.6 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · DAL at TBL · 7:00 PM ET

Stars at Lightning: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 1:48 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

55%
TBL
Model favorite
45%
55%
DAL50TBL

TBL by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.32.6 TBL; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

DAL← edge
edge →TBL
51.0%5v5 xG%54.0%
47.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.36xGF / 602.67
2.29xGA / 602.28
2.07Goals for / gm2.38
1.68Goals against / gm1.85
1.024PDO — luck, not skill1.019

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.024 vs 1.019) says DAL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a genuine coin flip: Dallas 2.3–2.6 against Tampa, with the Lightning favored at 55% win probability. That's about as close to pick'em as you get. But dig into the underlying play, and Tampa's advantage clarifies.

At even strength, the Lightning dominate. They're at 54.0% expected goals and 53.0% Corsi. Dallas sits at 51.0% xG and 47.0% Corsi—a consistent 3–6 point gap in the metrics that forecast play. The Lightning will control territory and high-danger chances for 60 minutes. In hockey, that's a real edge.

Both teams are running hot on PDO, which complicates the picture. Tampa's is 1.019; Dallas's is 1.024. When luck normalizes—and it will—both offenses will cool, and the underlying advantage becomes clearer.

Offensively, Dallas has a concentration risk. Jason Robertson has 25 goals, 21 assists, 0.96 xG per 60 minutes, and a 12.4% shooting rate. Michael Bunting provides support at 8 goals and 14 assists, but his 0.83 xG per 60 is modest. If Robertson falters, the Stars falter.

Tampa's attack spreads the load. Brandon Hagel has 23 goals and 26 assists with 1.10 xG per 60—elite. Anthony Cirelli matches him in danger with 15 goals, 18 assists, 0.95 xG per 60, and 17.0% shooting; he's added 5 hard-edged goals. Multiple weapons mean multiple ways to score.

Defensively, both teams carry weak points. Dallas leans on Tyler Myers. Tampa depends on Victor Hedman. In a game decided by possession and luck balance, the team that protects these links wins.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters