Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater

Breakdown · TOR at DET

Red Wings run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Oct 11

TORToronto Maple Leafs3 DETDetroit Red Wings6

The verdict · earned

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

TOR 3 · DET 6

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:22 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

DET's 6–3 win over Toronto wasn't as close as the score suggests. High-danger chances were deadlocked at 4–4, yet the Red Wings won decisively—a gap explained by superior shot quality. Detroit's chances averaged 0.075 expected goals per shot; Toronto's were 0.056.

That quality advantage compounded across 35 shot attempts, yielding a 5.05–2.69 expected-goals edge (65–35 split). Detroit controlled 60% of shot attempts and converted in the danger zone: 3-for-4 on high-danger chances. The Red Wings also capitalized on transition, with 3 of their 6 goals coming off the rush from 33 such opportunities.

Toronto's rush offense was lethal too—3 goals from 26 chances, a higher conversion rate than Detroit's. But the Maple Leafs couldn't overcome the deficit in shot volume and quality everywhere else.

A. Stolarz stopped 29 of 33 shots (0.879 SV%), finishing 1.05 goals above expected. It wasn't enough. C. Talbot didn't need to be spectacular, saving 20 of 23 (0.870 SV%).

Momentum shifted early in the third. Andrew Copp's wrist shot from the wing at 19:55 extended Detroit's lead when the game remained competitive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 11

TOR

DET

Red Wings run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.7 – 5.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

2.69

DET

5.05

35% of the chances65%

The board read TOR 3, DET 6. The chances read TOR 2.7, DET 5.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

DET

+0.9

goals above expected

DET5.05 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

TOR2.69 expected · 3 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

Every goal, in order

P1 02:27TORC. Jarnkrok1–0
P1 12:29TORN. Roy2–0
P2 08:56DETM. Kasper2–1
P2 14:55DETL. Raymond2–2
P2 18:10DETP. Kane2–3
P3 02:38TORM. Domi3–3
P3 06:45DETL. RaymondPP3–4

+2 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

TOR

34 shots

Final

84 shots

DET

50 shots

TOR DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORDET

1 / 4

0.95 xG

High danger

3 / 4

1.80 xG

2 / 13

1.27 xG

Medium

3 / 22

2.58 xG

0 / 31

0.47 xG

Low

0 / 41

0.66 xG

The Red Wings buried 3 of 4 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

B+

A. Stolarz

+1.1

TOR · 29/33

C. Talbot

−0.3

DET · 20/23

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Red Wings run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 8–13

02:27TORC. Jarnkrok(N. Roy, C. Tanev)1–0
12:29TORN. Roy(M. Rielly, W. Nylander)2–0

2ndshots 9–15

08:56DETM. Kasper(P. Kane, A. DeBrincat)2–1
14:55DETL. Raymond(D. Larkin, E. Finnie)2–2
18:10DETP. Kane(A. DeBrincat, A. Johansson)2–3

3rdshots 6–7

02:38TORM. Domi(M. Rielly)3–3
06:45DETL. Raymondpower play(P. Kane, A. DeBrincat)3–4
18:12DETS. Edvinssonempty net(C. Talbot)3–5
19:55DETA. Coppempty net3–6

score reads TOR–DET

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.05

DET chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.9

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.027

DET puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

58.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.69Expected goals5.05

DET 65% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal35

4High-danger chances4

48All attempts (Corsi)67

Adjusted for score: TOR 39% · DET 61%

Faceoffs · DET won33%off68%neu53%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR1 / 4 · 0.95 xG

DET3 / 4 · 1.80 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR2 / 13 · 1.27 xG

DET3 / 22 · 2.58 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR0 / 31 · 0.47 xG

DET0 / 41 · 0.66 xG

DET went 3-for-4 from high danger on 1.80 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

3 G · 2.69 xG · +0.3

DET

6 G · 5.05 xG · +0.9

01234567

TOR finished +0.3 against expected, DET +0.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST2/14

SNAP0/7

TIP IN1/5

SLAP0/7

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/14

DET

WRIST3/25

SNAP2/7

TIP IN0/8

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED1/1

OTHER0/17

TOR

DET

Off the rush

3 G on 26

2.56 xG

3 G on 33

2.68 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

0 G on 2

0.30 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 2-for-14, DET 3-for-25. 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

A. Stolarz

TOR · 29/33 · .879

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/41.8-1.2

Medium3/222.6-0.4

Low0/410.7+0.7

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

C. Talbot

DET · 20/23 · .870

-0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium2/131.3-0.7

Low0/310.5+0.5

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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

34 shots

Final

84 shots

DET

50 shots

TOR DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, DET 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

A. DeBrincat

#93 · R · —

0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 17:47 on ice · +1

P. Kane

#88 · R · —

1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 16:25 on ice · +1

M. Rielly

#44 · D · —

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:15 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 11

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:38 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

Detroit wins this matchup on the underlying numbers, with the model favoring the Red Wings at 58% win probability. That projection reflects territorial command and shot quality Detroit doesn't relinquish.

The underlying play tilts sharply toward Detroit. The Red Wings dominate expected goals at 50.9% 5v5 xG to Toronto's 45.3%—a gap wide enough to predict outcomes across a season. Detroit also drives possession at 49.2% Corsi%, compared to Toronto's 45.5%. Neither team's PDO (Toronto 1.003, Detroit 0.986) suggests unsustainable bounces; Detroit's slight luck deficit actually steepens their underlying edge.

Toronto's offense runs through Auston Matthews: 17 goals, 13 assists, 1.10 xG/60, 1 high-danger goal. John Tavares supports at 15 goals and 24 assists with 0.91 xG/60, 3 high-danger goals, and a 12.4% shot conversion that signals finishing prowess.

Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat at 17 goals and 28 assists (0.88 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals), operating at a 9.0% shooting rate that reflects elite playmaking over volume scoring. Marco Kasper adds secondary threat at 7 goals and 8 assists on 0.81 xG/60 with 1 high-danger goal, though his 6.1% shooting suggests regression risk.

The Maple Leafs can't escape by out-executing: both teams show stable metrics that should repeat. Toronto's path requires containing the territorial grind that defines Detroit's system while punishing the Red Wings' sole weakness—their PDO lag—and that's a narrow ask in a game where the underlying numbers favor the other side.

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model. Rates from 2025–26; 2026–27 sample not yet available.

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

DET 58%

58%

DET

Model favorite

42%

58%

TOR50DET

DET by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score TOR 3.0–3.5 DET; 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

TOR← edge

edge →DET

45.3%50.9%

45.5%49.2%

2.913.22

3.513.10

3.072.91

3.603.10

1.0030.986

DET holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.986) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

TOR

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

DET

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.003

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.986

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALDET

Shutdown Assignment: Red Wings

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

TACTICALTOR

Shutdown Assignment: Maple Leafs

Key matchup: Neutralize Alex DeBrincat (17G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

STRENGTHTOR

Auston Matthews drives the Maple Leafs offense

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

WARNINGTOR

Exploitable minutes: Bo Groulx

Bo Groulx is on ice for 4.00 xGA/60 and 11 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Bo Groulx's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Red Wings own the underlying play — 50.9% 5v5 xG vs 45.3%.
The Red Wings drive Corsi at 49.2% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Red Wings own the underlying play — 50.9% 5v5 xG vs 45.3%.
The Red Wings drive Corsi at 49.2% — expect territorial tilt.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page