Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater

Breakdown · NSH at TOR

Maple Leafs run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Oct 14

NSHNashville Predators4 TORToronto Maple Leafs7

The verdict · earned

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

NSH 4 · TOR 7

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:40 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 7–4 win obscures Nashville's greatest weakness: the Predators scored 1.27 goals beyond their 2.73 xG, which means they overperformed despite being badly outmaneuvered on quality. Toronto's 65% share of expected goals (5.13–2.73) should have produced a wider margin, but both teams exceeded their models — Toronto by 1.87 goals, Nashville by 1.27 — leaving a scoreline closer than the underlying metrics warrant.

The quality gap was vast. Toronto generated 0.090 xG per shot; Nashville, 0.039 — more than double. High-danger chances favored Toronto 7–4, and the home team converted at elite rates: 4 of 7 (57%). Nashville's chances came from the perimeter and second opportunities; three rebound attempts yielded one goal. Where the teams truly separated was the rush: Toronto scored 4 times on 31 rush attempts, while Nashville managed 2 goals on 30 tries.

O. Ekman-Larsson led Toronto's offensive creation with 1G, 2A in 20:17; M. Knies added 3A in 18:55. W. Nylander scored at 19:36 and finished with 1G, 2A in 18:51. Both clubs scored twice from low-danger areas — the kind of mistakes opposing goalies expect to swallow.

C. Primeau (26/30 saves, 0.867 SV%, -1.27 vs expected) won despite performing below expectations, a direct result of Toronto's offensive dominance. J. Annunen (21/26 saves, 0.808 SV%) faced an unrelenting assault and kept the deficit manageable.

Nashville's problem was not bad luck. They were simply outplayed in shot quality, high-danger creation, and transition tempo — three core measures of team strength.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 14

NSH

TOR

Maple Leafs run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.7 – 5.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

NSH

2.73

TOR

5.13

35% of the chances65%

The board read NSH 4, TOR 7. The chances read NSH 2.7, TOR 5.1.

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

Luck check

TOR

+1.9

goals above expected

TOR5.13 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

NSH2.73 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

The Maple Leafs scored 1.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 08:42TORJ. McCabe0–1
P1 13:34TORO. Ekman-Larsson0–2
P2 03:21NSHM. McCarron1–2
P2 04:05NSHE. Haula2–2
P2 08:49TORJ. Tavares2–3
P2 16:24TORB. McMann2–4
P3 10:42TORA. Matthews2–5

+4 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

NSH

44 shots

Final

89 shots

TOR

45 shots

NSH TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 7 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

NSHTOR

1 / 4

1.03 xG

High danger

4 / 7

2.48 xG

1 / 10

0.87 xG

Medium

1 / 16

2.06 xG

2 / 57

0.84 xG

Low

2 / 34

0.60 xG

The Maple Leafs buried 4 of 7 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

J. Annunen

+0.1

NSH · 21/26

D-

C. Primeau

−1.3

TOR · 26/30

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs run the Predators 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 8–9

08:42TORJ. McCabe(D. Joshua, J. Tavares)0–1
13:34TORO. Ekman-Larsson(W. Nylander, S. Benoit)0–2

2ndshots 13–6

03:21NSHM. McCarron(B. Skjei, N. Perbix)1–2
04:05NSHE. Haula(O. Wiesblatt)2–2
08:49TORJ. Tavares(W. Nylander, O. Ekman-Larsson)2–3
16:24TORB. McMann(N. Robertson, O. Ekman-Larsson)2–4

3rdshots 9–13

10:42TORA. Matthews(M. Knies, E. Cowan)2–5
16:06NSHR. Josi(A. Wilsby, J. Marchessault)3–5
16:50TORA. Matthewsempty net(J. Tavares, M. Knies)3–6
18:49NSHN. Perbix(A. Wilsby, O. Wiesblatt)4–6
19:36TORW. Nylanderempty net(M. Knies, J. McCabe)4–7

score reads NSH–TOR

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.13

TOR chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.9

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.067

TOR puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

44.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.73Expected goals5.13

TOR 65% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal28

4High-danger chances7

71All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: NSH 61% · TOR 39%

Faceoffs · TOR won41%off57%neu56%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

NSH1 / 4 · 1.03 xG

TOR4 / 7 · 2.48 xG

Medium dangermid-range

NSH1 / 10 · 0.87 xG

TOR1 / 16 · 2.06 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

NSH2 / 57 · 0.84 xG

TOR2 / 34 · 0.60 xG

TOR went 4-for-7 from high danger on 2.48 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

NSH

4 G · 2.73 xG · +1.3

TOR

7 G · 5.13 xG · +1.9

012345678

NSH finished +1.3 against expected, TOR +1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

NSH

WRIST4/32

TIP IN0/4

SNAP0/4

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP0/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/27

TOR

WRIST7/31

TIP IN0/6

SNAP0/2

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/2

POKE0/1

OTHER0/12

NSH

TOR

Off the rush

2 G on 30

1.94 xG

4 G on 31

3.65 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.45 xG

1 G on 2

0.38 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 4-for-32, TOR 7-for-31. TOR scored 4 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

J. Annunen

NSH · 21/26 · .808

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger4/72.5-1.5

Medium1/162.1+1.1

Low2/340.6-1.4

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. Primeau

TOR · 26/30 · .867

-1.3

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.0+0.0

Medium1/100.9-0.1

Low2/570.8-1.2

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

NSH

44 shots

Final

89 shots

TOR

45 shots

NSH TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH 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

O. Ekman-Larsson

#95 · D · —

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:17 on ice · +2

M. Knies

#23 · L · —

0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 18:55 on ice · +2

W. Nylander

#88 · R · —

1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 18:51 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 14

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:25 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 3.3–3.2 Predators win, with Nashville at 51% win probability—the definition of a pick'em.

Nashville owns the underlying play. The Predators control 48.7% of expected goals at 5v5 against Toronto's 45.3%, and dominate shot attempts at 49.5% Corsi to 45.5%. Expect Nashville to dictate territory.

But Toronto's elite talent tilts the ice back. Auston Matthews is a 1.10 xG/60 machine with 17 goals and 13 assists; John Tavares adds 0.91 xG/60 with 24 assists. Nashville's Zachary L'Heureux (0.85 xG/60, 4 goals on 16.0% shooting) and Filip Forsberg (0.80 xG/60, 23 goals at 13.6% shooting) are equally lethal in their own right—Forsberg especially, given his volume.

The shutdown assignment is mutual: Toronto must slow L'Heureux; Nashville must contain Matthews.

Where it gets interesting: Nashville's slight underlying advantage competes against Toronto's marginal luck. The Predators' 0.992 PDO is dead at league average; Toronto's 1.003 suggests they've gotten slightly fortunate in goal-on-goal scenarios. That gap—Nashville's process edge versus Toronto's minor variance luck—is why the model lands at near-perfect indifference.

Close to call is right.

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

NSH 51%

51%

NSH

Model favorite

51%

49%

NSH50TOR

NSH by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NSH 3.3–3.2 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

NSH← edge

edge →TOR

48.7%45.3%

49.5%45.5%

3.092.91

3.243.51

2.953.07

3.263.60

0.9921.003

NSH holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 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

NSH

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

TOR

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.992

NSH 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 Zachary L'Heureux (4G, 0.85 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

TACTICALNSH

Shutdown Assignment: Predators

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.

WARNINGNSH

Exploitable minutes: Jonathan Marchessault

Jonathan Marchessault is on ice for 3.07 xGA/60 and 40 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Jonathan Marchessault's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Predators own the underlying play — 48.7% 5v5 xG vs 45.3%.
The Predators drive Corsi at 49.5% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Predators own the underlying play — 48.7% 5v5 xG vs 45.3%.
The Predators drive Corsi at 49.5% — expect territorial tilt.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

NSH

Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A

0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh

Filip Forsberg23G 17A

0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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