Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
← Thu, Oct 16 · the slate
Breakdown · NYR at TOR

Maple Leafs steal one from the Rangers against the run of play

Final / OTThu, Oct 16
NYRNew York Rangers1TORToronto Maple Leafs2
The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.70–2.50 and won anyway.

NYR 1 · TOR 2
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:48 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 won 2–1 in overtime despite holding just 40% of expected goals—a heist that depended entirely on execution and goaltending. New York dominated in chance quality (3.70–2.50 xG), yet A. Stolarz's brilliance and Toronto's finish overcame that gap.

A. Stolarz made the difference. The Toronto goaltender stopped 2.7 goals above expected, including a perfect 5-for-5 on high-danger chances. When a team is outshot in quality 3.70–2.50 and scores once, the goalie carried the weight.

New York's scoring drought tells the same story. The Rangers squandered an expected 3.70 goals and posted 1—a 2.70-goal miss that rarely repeats. I. Shesterkin held his own (+0.50 vs expected), but Toronto's execution proved decisive.

Toronto didn't need to control play. They took 45% of shot attempts (24–29) and converted when it mattered. A. Matthews scored the overtime winner at 00:58 from the doorstep—the play that ended a game shaped entirely by variance and chance.

W. Nylander supplied 2 assists in 21:13. M. Rielly added 1 in 21:10. Their playmaking, combined with A. Stolarz's wall in net, was enough. New York will feel robbed; the expected goals fully support that feeling.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 16
NYR
1
TOR
2

Maple Leafs steal one from the Rangers against the run of play

Chances 3.7 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Rangers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
NYR
3.70
TOR
2.50
60% of the chances40%

The board read NYR 1, TOR 2. The chances read NYR 3.7, TOR 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
−0.5
goals above expected
TOR2.50 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
NYR3.70 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Rangers left 2.7 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 11:48TORM. KniesPP0–1
  2. P3 04:51NYRJ. Parssinen1–1
  3. OT 00:58TORA. Matthews1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NYR
45 shots
1
Final
83 shots
TOR
38 shots
2
NYR attackTOR attack
NYR TOR Goal
45
shots · 1 in
38
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NYRTOR
0 / 5
1.21 xG
High danger
1 / 3
0.78 xG
1 / 16
1.92 xG
Medium
1 / 10
1.04 xG
0 / 37
0.57 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.69 xG

The Rangers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Stolarz
+2.7
TOR · 28/29
B
I. Shesterkin
+0.5
NYR · 22/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs steal one from the Rangers 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 10–9
  1. 11:48TORM. Kniespower play(W. Nylander, O. Ekman-Larsson)0–1
2ndshots 9–10no goals
    3rdshots 10–4
    1. 04:51NYRJ. Parssinen(B. Schneider)1–1
    OTshots 0–1
    1. 00:58TORA. Matthews(W. Nylander, M. Rielly)1–2

    score reads NYR–TOR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.50
    TOR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.024
    TOR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    45.3%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.70Expected goals2.50
    NYR 60% of the chance quality
    29Shots on goal24
    5High-danger chances3
    58All attempts (Corsi)48
    Adjusted for score: NYR 57% · TOR 43%
    Faceoffs · TOR won38%off46%neu57%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NYR0 / 5 · 1.21 xG
    TOR1 / 3 · 0.78 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NYR1 / 16 · 1.92 xG
    TOR1 / 10 · 1.04 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NYR0 / 37 · 0.57 xG
    TOR0 / 35 · 0.69 xG

    NYR went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.21 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NYR
    1 G · 3.70 xG · -2.7
    TOR
    2 G · 2.50 xG · -0.5
    01234

    NYR finished -2.7 against expected, TOR -0.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NYR
    WRIST0/25
    SNAP0/9
    TIP IN1/9
    SLAP0/1
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/13
    TOR
    WRIST0/23
    SNAP0/6
    TIP IN1/4
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/0
    DEFLECTED1/1
    OTHER0/10
    NYR
    TOR
    Off the rush
    1 G on 27
    2.96 xG
    1 G on 27
    1.60 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.38 xG
    1 G on 2
    0.58 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: NYR went 0-for-25, TOR 0-for-23.

    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
    I. Shesterkin
    NYR · 22/24 · .917
    +0.5
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.8-0.2
    Medium1/101.0+0.0
    Low0/350.7+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

    A. Stolarz
    TOR · 28/29 · .966
    +2.7
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.2+1.2
    Medium1/161.9+0.9
    Low0/370.6+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

    83 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NYR
    45 shots
    1
    Final
    83 shots
    TOR
    38 shots
    2
    NYR attackTOR attack
    NYR TOR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — NYR 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 · —
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:13 on ice · +1
    A. Matthews
    #34 · C · —
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:32 on ice · +1
    M. Rielly
    #44 · D · —
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:10 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Oct 16
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelSep 22, 3:27 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 3.2 goals per side—a true pick'em with the Maple Leafs at 50% win probability. These teams are functionally equivalent.

    The Rangers drive 48.6% Corsi while Toronto sits at 45.5%—territorial advantage to New York. That advantage carries through to expected goals: New York projects 47.5% share, Toronto 45.3%. New York's 1.009 PDO and Toronto's 1.003 both sit near true talent levels. That means variance won't determine the outcome.

    Auston Matthews is Toronto's offensive cornerstone. At 1.10 xG/60, he generates chances at a rate that drives the Maple Leafs—his 17 goals reflect that efficiency. The Rangers' offensive equivalent is Adam Sykora: 3 goals at 0.91 xG/60, though his 20.0% shooting mark suggests regression ahead. Gabe Perreault (0.79 xG/60, 8 goals, 13.1% shooting) offers secondary scoring for the Rangers. John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15 goals, 12.4% shooting) does the same for Toronto.

    The shutdown assignments define the margin. New York's task is containing Matthews and his 1.10 xG/60—Toronto's highest-leverage threat. Toronto's counter: managing Sykora, whose 0.91 xG/60 will keep generating offense even as his shooting rate compresses. Perreault and Tavares represent the secondary finishing edge.

    The core issue: territorial control hasn't reliably predicted expected goals in this matchup. The Rangers' Corsi advantage hasn't guaranteed an xG edge. Toronto appears efficient in fewer attempts. Neither team has built separation.

    Two rosters of equivalent strength with different strategic profiles. The team executing its shutdown assignments—the Rangers containing Matthews, Toronto managing Sykora—controls the margin.

    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

    TOR 50%
    50%
    TOR
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    NYR50TOR

    TOR by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NYR 3.2–3.2 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
    NYR← edge
    edge →TOR
    47.5%45.3%
    48.6%45.5%
    2.872.91
    3.183.51
    2.873.07
    3.043.60
    1.0091.003

    NYR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.009 vs 1.003) says NYR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    NYR
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    TOR
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.009
    NYR 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 Adam Sykora (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

    Key matchup: Neutralize Adam Sykora (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

    TACTICALNYR

    Shutdown Assignment: Rangers

    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.

    WARNINGNYR

    Exploitable minutes: Vincent Iorio

    Vincent Iorio is on ice for 3.12 xGA/60 and 27 high-danger shots against this season.

    Hunt matchups against Vincent Iorio's shifts with the top line.

    Where the edges live
    • The Rangers drive Corsi at 48.6% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Rangers drive Corsi at 48.6% — expect territorial tilt.
    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    NYR
    Adam Sykora3G 1A
    0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
    Gabe Perreault8G 11A
    0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% 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