Backcheck
Recap · TBL at ANA

Lightning edge the Ducks in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 11, 10:32 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
TBL
Tampa Bay Lightning
4
Home
ANA
Anaheim Ducks
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.58Expected goals3.24
52% share for the better side
29Shot attempts (SOG)28
6High-danger chances4
57Corsi (all attempts)61
Score-adjusted: 46% / 54%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Expected goals nearly split even (48–52), yet high-danger chances favored the Lightning 6–4. Both teams excelled on the rush—Anaheim with 3 goals on 26 chances, Tampa with 4 on 30—showing the competitive level of play. D. Raddysh's wrist shot from the slot at 2:47 of overtime delivered the deciding goal.

Anaheim's shot volume nearly matched Tampa's: the Ducks held 49% of shot attempts (28–29 on goal). A. Vasilevskiy's 0.893 save percentage outpaced L. Dostal's 0.862, a gap too narrow to hand the Lightning a comfortable margin. The Ducks' precision in dangerous areas kept them within reach.

Three Stars

  • B. Hagel (TBL) — 3A in 19:14
  • D. Raddysh (TBL) — 1G, 1A in 26:08
  • N. Kucherov (TBL) — 1G, 1A in 18:29
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL2 / 6 · 1.57 xG
ANA1 / 4 · 0.92 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL1 / 14 · 1.35 xG
ANA1 / 16 · 1.63 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 37 · 0.66 xG
ANA1 / 41 · 0.70 xG

ANA went 1-for-16 from medium danger on 1.63 expected goals — 0.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
4 G · 3.58 xG · +0.4
ANA
3 G · 3.24 xG · -0.2
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
A. VasilevskiyTBL
+0.2
L. DostalANA
-0.4

TBL finished +0.4 against expected, ANA -0.2 — L. Dostal (ANA) allowed 0.4 more goals than expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
SNAP1/14
WRIST1/8
SLAP1/8
TIP IN1/8
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/16
ANA
SNAP2/18
WRIST1/11
SLAP0/9
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/16
TBL
ANA
Off the rush
4 G on 30 · 3.10 xG
3 G on 26 · 2.24 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.27 xG
0 G on 1 · 0.03 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 1-for-14, ANA 2-for-18. TBL scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
0 G · 3 A · 6 SOG · 19:14 TOI · +2
D. Raddysh
#43 · D · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 26:08 TOI · +1
N. Kucherov
#86 · R · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:29 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • ANA was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • TBL was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 30 rush chances.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · TBL at ANA · 4:00 PM ET

Lightning at Ducks: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 10:31 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
ANA
Model favorite
49%
51%
TBL50ANA

ANA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.62.7 ANA; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

TBL← edge
edge →ANA
54.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
53.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.67xGF / 602.80
2.28xGA / 602.59
2.38Goals for / gm2.09
1.85Goals against / gm2.32
1.019PDO — luck, not skill0.981

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.019 vs 0.981) says TBL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.6–2.7 goal game with the Ducks at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as it gets.

Recent form diverges sharply. The Lightning are 6-3-1 in their last 10—the hotter team by points pace. The Ducks carry -15 goal differential over the same stretch, yet underlying metrics nearly erase the gap. The Lightning hold marginal edges in both expected goals (54.0% to 52.0%) and shot attempt share (53.0% to 52.0%), which is not enough to explain the form gap entirely. That gap—the Lightning's recent surge versus the Ducks' cold stretch—looks like volatility breaking in Tampa's favor rather than a fundamental talent disparity.

The regression math tilts slightly Anaheim. The Ducks' 0.981 PDO reads as a team running cold, due for positive variance; the Lightning's 1.019 PDO is running hot and likely to regress. That's a small edge in the variance alone.

The Ducks also own a rest advantage—one day of rest versus the Lightning's three. L. Dostal faces a back-to-back, which creates assignment risk; watch whether the Ducks lean on a backup or ask their starter to push through.

Scoring will depend on Brandon Hagel and Anthony Cirelli for Tampa Bay. Hagel posts 1.10 xG/60 with 23 goals and a 15.8% shooting rate, though his high-danger work (2 goals) lags his volume. Cirelli clocks 0.95 xG/60 but owns a 17.0% shooting rate—more efficient relative to his chances. For Anaheim, Beckett Sennecke operates at 1.03 xG/60 with 20 goals and a team-leading 8 high-danger goals. Cutter Gauthier brings 25 goals from 0.99 xG/60 but owns just 2 high-danger tallies, so his scoring leans on secondary chances.

Victor Hedman is the Lightning's defensive weak link; Mason McTavish fills that role for Anaheim. In a game this tight, those gaps will be tested.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
ANA
Beckett Sennecke20G 19A
1.03 xG/60 · 8 HD · 13.5% sh
Cutter Gauthier25G 16A
0.99 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.9% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters