Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
← Wed, Oct 8 · the slate
Breakdown · MTL at TOR

Maple Leafs pull away from the Canadiens

FinalWed, Oct 8
MTLMontreal Canadiens2TORToronto Maple Leafs5
The verdict · earned

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

MTL 2 · TOR 5
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 1:49 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited 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

Toronto's 5–2 victory masks an uncomfortable detail: Montreal underperformed its expected goals by 1.95, suggesting their defeat stemmed from execution rather than dominance.

The Maple Leafs controlled the high-danger areas—converting 3 of 5 chances while Montreal managed 0 of 7. That finishing gap explains the scoreboard.

Toronto generated 0.088 xG per shot compared to Montreal's 0.058, indicating ruthless precision in tight spaces. The expected goals split favored Toronto 4.33–3.95, a narrow edge for a three-goal margin. A. Stolarz (0.935 SV%, +1.95 vs expected) turned that edge decisive.

William Nylander's backhander from the doorstep in the third period was the inflection point. He finished with 1 goal and 2 assists in 18:40.

S. Montembeault saved 1.33 goals above expected, a rare bright spot in a game shaped by poor finishing. Shot attempts remained balanced—Toronto at 47% (27 on goal, 31 faced). Montreal's 0-for-7 on high-danger chances left no margin for error.

Toronto's rush game produced 3 goals on 21 chances. The difference between the teams wasn't volume—Montreal generated six rebound chances to Toronto's four—but finish. The Leafs converted where it counted most.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 8
MTL
2
TOR
5

Maple Leafs pull away from the Canadiens

Chances 4.0 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
3.95
TOR
4.33
48% of the chances52%

The board read MTL 2, TOR 5. The chances read MTL 4.0, TOR 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+0.7
goals above expected
TOR4.33 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL3.95 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canadiens left 1.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:00TORB. McMann0–1
  2. P1 05:39MTLO. KapanenSH1–1
  3. P2 01:30MTLZ. Bolduc2–1
  4. P2 05:40TORC. Jarnkrok2–2
  5. P3 09:02TORM. Rielly2–3
  6. P3 18:28TORA. MatthewsEN2–4
  7. P3 19:45TORW. NylanderEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
47 shots
2
Final
82 shots
TOR
35 shots
5
MTL attackTOR attack
MTL TOR Goal
47
shots · 2 in
35
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLTOR
0 / 7
1.75 xG
High danger
3 / 5
2.50 xG
1 / 14
1.50 xG
Medium
2 / 11
1.26 xG
1 / 47
0.70 xG
Low
0 / 33
0.57 xG

The Canadiens went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Stolarz
+1.9
TOR · 29/31
B+
S. Montembeault
+1.3
MTL · 22/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs pull away from the Canadiens

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 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 11–8
  1. 01:00TORB. McMann(W. Nylander, J. Tavares)0–1
  2. 05:39MTLO. Kapanenshorthanded1–1
2ndshots 14–10
  1. 01:30MTLZ. Bolduc(B. Gallagher, K. Dach)2–1
  2. 05:40TORC. Jarnkrok(M. Rielly, S. Lorentz)2–2
3rdshots 6–9
  1. 09:02TORM. Rielly(M. Knies, M. Maccelli)2–3
  2. 18:28TORA. Matthewsempty net(W. Nylander)2–4
  3. 19:45TORW. Nylanderempty net(S. Lorentz, J. Tavares)2–5

score reads MTL–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.33
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.073
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.95Expected goals4.33
TOR 52% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal27
7High-danger chances5
68All attempts (Corsi)49
Adjusted for score: MTL 59% · TOR 41%
Faceoffs · TOR won69%off50%neu61%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL0 / 7 · 1.75 xG
TOR3 / 5 · 2.50 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL1 / 14 · 1.50 xG
TOR2 / 11 · 1.26 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL1 / 47 · 0.70 xG
TOR0 / 33 · 0.57 xG

MTL went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.75 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
2 G · 3.95 xG · -1.9
TOR
5 G · 4.33 xG · +0.7
0123456

MTL finished -1.9 against expected, TOR +0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
WRIST1/29
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND1/7
SLAP0/4
SNAP0/2
OTHER0/21
TOR
WRIST3/20
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND1/3
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/4
OTHER0/14
MTL
TOR
Off the rush
1 G on 28
2.28 xG
3 G on 21
3.33 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 6
1.34 xG
0 G on 4
0.39 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 1-for-29, TOR 3-for-20. TOR scored 3 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
S. Montembeault
MTL · 22/25 · .880
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/52.5-0.5
Medium2/111.3-0.7
Low0/330.6+0.6

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. Stolarz
TOR · 29/31 · .935
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.8+1.8
Medium1/141.5+0.5
Low1/470.7-0.3

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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
47 shots
2
Final
82 shots
TOR
35 shots
5
MTL attackTOR attack
MTL TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, TOR 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
W. Nylander
#88 · R · —
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:40 on ice · +2
M. Rielly
#44 · D · —
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 20:47 on ice · +2
J. Tavares
#91 · C · —
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:33 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Oct 8
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:00 AMEdited 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 3.4–3.3 Montreal victory with the Canadiens at 52% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. This is a genuine coin flip.

Montreal controls the underlying play. At 5v5, the Canadiens generate 49.7% of expected goals while Toronto manages only 45.3%, and Montreal's 48.2% Corsi edge over Toronto's 45.5% confirms they're outshooting and out-chancing the Maple Leafs consistently. That's the kind of structural advantage that tends to hold up, even if any single game is noisy.

Auston Matthews is Toronto's engine: 17 goals and 13 assists at 1.10 xG/60, operating at elite volume. His 10.6% shooting rate means regression is coming, but even regressed Matthews remains dangerous. Cole Caufield drives Montreal with 33 goals, 16 assists, and a 20.0% shooting rate at 0.97 xG/60—efficiency far above league normal. Toronto's ceiling depends on Matthews staying hot. Montreal's depends on Caufield sustaining that shooting without catastrophic cooling.

John Tavares (15G, 24A at 0.91 xG/60) and Oliver Kapanen (19G, 12A at 0.83 xG/60) supply secondary punch. Tavares's assist volume versus Kapanen's goal total hints at different offensive architectures—one team feeds through playmakers, the other hunts more direct chances.

Montreal's PDO is 1.019, running hot and expecting regression. Toronto's 1.003 sits at neutral. The Canadiens' underlying edge is real but thin. Mike Matheson is Montreal's defensive weak link; Bo Groulx fills that role for Toronto.

A 52% projection separated by a tenth of a goal is the definition of a coin flip. Calling it anything firmer would be overconfident.

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

MTL 52%
52%
MTL
Model favorite
52%
48%
MTL50TOR

MTL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MTL 3.4–3.3 TOR; 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
MTL← edge
edge →TOR
49.7%45.3%
48.2%45.5%
3.282.91
3.323.51
3.403.07
3.063.60
1.0191.003

MTL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.003) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
MTL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
TOR
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.019
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALTOR

Shutdown Assignment: Maple Leafs

Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 0.97 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 0.97 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

TACTICALMTL

Shutdown Assignment: Canadiens

Key matchup: Neutralize Auston Matthews (17G, 1.10 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Auston Matthews (17G, 1.10 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

STRENGTHTOR

Auston Matthews drives the Maple Leafs offense

Auston Matthews: 17G 13A, 1.10 xG/60, 1 high-danger goals.

WARNINGMTL

Exploitable minutes: Mike Matheson

Mike Matheson is on ice for 2.90 xGA/60 and 78 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Mike Matheson's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Canadiens own the underlying play — 49.7% 5v5 xG vs 45.3%.
Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Canadiens own the underlying play — 49.7% 5v5 xG vs 45.3%.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
TOR
Auston Matthews17G 13A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.6% sh
John Tavares15G 24A
0.91 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.4% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page