Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
← Mon, Oct 13 · the slate
Breakdown · DET at TOR

Red Wings steal one from the Maple Leafs against the run of play

FinalMon, Oct 13
DETDetroit Red Wings3TORToronto Maple Leafs2
The verdict · stolen

The Red Wings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.29–3.96 and won anyway.

DET 3 · TOR 2
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:35 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

Detroit's 3–2 victory defied the underlying play. Toronto commanded 63% of expected goals (3.96–2.29) and 73% of shot attempts (40–15), yet left empty-handed.

The gap was goaltending. C. Talbot stopped 1.96 goals above expected, including all 5 high-danger chances. A. Stolarz surrendered 0.71 goals above expected. Toronto burned 5 high-danger chances with nothing to show — a rare miss that punishes even teams in control.

Mason Appleton's wrist shot from the high slot (19:15, third period) shifted momentum when Detroit had no claim to staying close. One opportunistic finish became the game's fulcrum, the moment where Toronto's process — 73% of attempts, 63% of expected goals — failed to yield results.

Toronto's offense was clinical in flashes. The Maple Leafs scored on 2 of 31 rush chances, marking their opportunistic moments. Detroit answered with 2 goals on 18 rush chances — a sharper conversion rate that epitomized the night's larger story. Toronto created 4 rebound opportunities but converted none, crashing the net without reward.

Detroit won through efficiency: fewer chances, better execution, superior goaltending. This is what process failing to align with results looks like.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 13
DET
3
TOR
2

Red Wings steal one from the Maple Leafs against the run of play

Chances 2.3 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
DET
2.29
TOR
3.96
37% of the chances63%

The board read DET 3, TOR 2. The chances read DET 2.3, TOR 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+0.7
goals above expected
DET2.29 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR3.96 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Maple Leafs left 2.0 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 18:55DETD. LarkinPP1–0
  2. P3 04:25DETJ. van Riemsdyk2–0
  3. P3 07:29TORM. Knies2–1
  4. P3 13:42TORC. Jarnkrok2–2
  5. P3 19:15DETM. Appleton3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DET
29 shots
3
Final
82 shots
TOR
53 shots
2
DET attackTOR attack
DET TOR Goal
29
shots · 3 in
53
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DETTOR
1 / 5
1.30 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.11 xG
1 / 3
0.48 xG
Medium
2 / 18
1.91 xG
1 / 31
0.51 xG
Low
0 / 52
0.94 xG

The Maple Leafs went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. Talbot
+2.0
DET · 38/40
D
A. Stolarz
−0.7
TOR · 12/15
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings steal one from the Maple Leafs against the run of play

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 6–13
  1. 18:55DETD. Larkinpower play(A. DeBrincat, L. Raymond)1–0
2ndshots 4–11no goals
    3rdshots 5–16
    1. 04:25DETJ. van Riemsdyk(A. Copp)2–0
    2. 07:29TORM. Knies(B. McMann)2–1
    3. 13:42TORC. Jarnkrok(A. Matthews, M. Knies)2–2
    4. 19:15DETM. Appleton(B. Chiarot, E. Finnie)3–2

    score reads DET–TOR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.29
    DET chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.7
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.050
    DET puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    34.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.29Expected goals3.96
    TOR 63% of the chance quality
    15Shots on goal40
    5High-danger chances5
    39All attempts (Corsi)75
    Adjusted for score: DET 32% · TOR 68%
    Faceoffs · TOR won59%off80%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    DET1 / 5 · 1.30 xG
    TOR0 / 5 · 1.11 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    DET1 / 3 · 0.48 xG
    TOR2 / 18 · 1.91 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    DET1 / 31 · 0.51 xG
    TOR0 / 52 · 0.94 xG

    TOR went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.11 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    DET
    3 G · 2.29 xG · +0.7
    TOR
    2 G · 3.96 xG · -2.0
    012345

    DET finished +0.7 against expected, TOR -2.0.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    DET
    WRIST2/14
    BACKHAND1/7
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    SNAP0/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/10
    TOR
    WRIST1/39
    BACKHAND0/2
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN1/4
    SNAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/22
    DET
    TOR
    Off the rush
    2 G on 18
    1.32 xG
    2 G on 31
    2.46 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.67 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.73 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 2-for-14, TOR 1-for-39. DET scored 2 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
    C. Talbot
    DET · 38/40 · .950
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.1+1.1
    Medium2/181.9-0.1
    Low0/520.9+0.9

    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 · 12/15 · .800
    -0.7
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.3+0.3
    Medium1/30.5-0.5
    Low1/310.5-0.5

    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

    82 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    DET
    29 shots
    3
    Final
    82 shots
    TOR
    53 shots
    2
    DET attackTOR attack
    DET TOR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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
    M. Knies
    #23 · L · —
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:31 on ice · +1
    A. Matthews
    #34 · C · —
    0 G · 1 A · 8 SOG · 22:34 on ice · +1
    B. Chiarot
    #8 · D · —
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:59 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Oct 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:15 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 3.4–3.2 Red Wings win with Detroit favored at 53% probability. This is a pick'em.

    Detroit owns the underlying play. The Red Wings carry 50.9% 5v5 expected goals to Toronto's 45.3%, and control possession at 49.2% Corsi to 45.5%. Toronto's only edge is luck: a 1.003 PDO against Detroit's 0.986, suggesting the Maple Leafs are overperforming their shot quality while the Red Wings underperform theirs.

    The game hinges on two matchups. Auston Matthews drives Toronto's offense at 1.10 xG/60 with 17 goals and 13 assists, and he is Detroit's defensive priority. Across the ice, Alex DeBrincat generates 0.88 xG/60 and has 17 goals and 28 assists with 2 high-danger goals, and the Maple Leafs will task themselves with neutralizing him. If DeBrincat operates at his 9.0% shooting rate, Detroit punishes Toronto's possession deficit. If Matthews finds space against a Red Wings forecheck, Toronto's 10.6% shooting keeps the game tight.

    Depth matters. Marco Kasper provides Detroit another 0.81 xG/60 with 7 goals and 1 high-danger goal on a 6.1% shooting rate. John Tavares offers Toronto 0.91 xG/60 and 15 goals with 3 high-danger goals; his 12.4% shooting is the Maple Leafs' most efficient engine outside Matthews.

    The Red Wings' defensive weak link is Axel Sandin-Pellikka. Toronto's is Bo Groulx. Both sides carry concerning goal-scoring profiles at 0% high-danger and 0% rebound rates—an unusual dryness that may not hold.

    Detroit's dominant underlying numbers suggest they should win this one. Toronto's shooting efficiency keeps it close. The model splits the difference.

    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 53%
    53%
    DET
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    DET50TOR

    DET by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 3.4–3.2 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
    DET← edge
    edge →TOR
    50.9%45.3%
    49.2%45.5%
    3.222.91
    3.103.51
    2.913.07
    3.103.60
    0.9861.003

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

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    DET
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    TOR
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.986
    DET 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 Alex DeBrincat (17G, 0.88 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

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

    TACTICALDET

    Shutdown Assignment: Red Wings

    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.

    WARNINGDET

    Exploitable minutes: Axel Sandin-Pellikka

    Axel Sandin-Pellikka is on ice for 2.83 xGA/60 and 46 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Axel Sandin-Pellikka'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
    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
    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