Game 1 of one of the most anticipated Stanley Cup Finals in recent memory did not disappoint. Unless, of course, you weren't one of the bettors cashing moneyline tickets on Andre Burakovsky's goal 83 seconds into overtime.
The moneyline saw its own brand of excitement in the four days leading up to puck drop. The Avalanche opened as favorites at a price of -165, only to see the market disagree with that assessment. Subsequent betting dropped that number to as low as -140. Whether one had the patience to wait for the best price or grabbed the Avs early, they were rewarded with a victory. But was that the "right" result? Based on Game 1's metrics, where should we lean in Game 2 from a value standpoint?
Lightning (+120) @ Avalanche (-145)
Five-on-five play (Game 1)
| TEAM | xGF | HDC | HDG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lightning | 1.22 | 8 | 2 |
| Avalanche | 2.66 | 13 | 2 |
Whether it was their 62% high-danger chance (HDC) rate at even strength or a 68% expected goal share while at five-on-five, the Avalanche proved that a moneyline price between -150 and -200 was probably pretty fair despite needing overtime to win Game 1.
As many expected based on the conjecture leading up to this series, goaltending was the equalizer, but not in the way we may have thought. Andrei Vasilevskiy looked a little shaky in the first period, giving up three goals - two from high-danger scorings areas and one on a five-on-three power play. For the rest of regulation, he repeatedly turned the Avs aside but still finished with a -0.76 goals saved above expectation (GSAx).
Vasilevskiy wasn't at his best in the early games of the Lightning's series with the Maple Leafs (-0.45 GSAx) and Rangers (-2.91 GSAx). Each time, he performed better in Game 2.
Darcy Kuemper wasn't particularly good in Game 1 either. A -1.07 GSAx and the Lightning's 25% even-strength HDC conversion rate - double the regular-season league average - confirm that. Plus, a third goal was scored from a non-high-danger area. Perhaps concessions can be made for it being Kuemper's first action since Game 1 against the Oilers.
For all the speed and skill that the skaters possess, there was just an average number of quality chances at even strength, and a lengthy two-man advantage resulted in a Colorado goal.
The price discovery in the market from before Game 1 corrected the opening odds, so there's less value on betting the Tampa Bay moneyline than we hoped for as our target to bounce back. As an alternative, with the faith that we have in the Lightning late in any series, taking your pick of a pair of series markets is the prudent way to back them before Game 2. Either the Lightning to win the series (+225) or Lightning +1.5 games (+120) is valuable, depending on what tickets you have already.
I expect both Vasilevskiy and Kuemper to perform better in Game 2. Anytime I lean toward the Lightning, I look to the under, as they'll be more likely to dictate a low-event pace - the type of game they want to play. They've kept opponents under 10 high-danger chances in their three previous Game 2s, and if they can achieve that tall task in Denver on Saturday, we'll be in for a contest that closely resembles the low-scoring second and third periods from Game 1.
Pick: Under 6 goals (-105)
Matt Russell is a betting writer for theScore. If there's a bad beat to be had, Matt will find it. Find him on Twitter @mrussauthentic.
