Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater

Breakdown · NJD at TOR

Devils pull away from the Maple Leafs

FinalTue, Oct 21

NJDNew Jersey Devils5 TORToronto Maple Leafs2

The verdict · earned

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

NJD 5 · TOR 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:32 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

The scoreboard read 5-2, but the underlying metrics tell a different story: this game was nearly even. New Jersey held a slight edge in expected goals 3.32–3.70 and controlled shot attempts 35–25. Yet the Devils still won by three. Goaltending separated them.

J. Allen (NJD) stopped one goal above expected, recording a 0.920 save percentage on 25 stops. A. Stolarz (TOR) posted a 0.882 mark on 34 shots—a gap that compounded through sixty minutes. Toronto created looks but lacked the goaltender to convert them into points.

The Maple Leafs held the high-danger advantage, 5–4, a silent indicator of how competitive this played. They generated lethal opportunities on the rush—two goals on 24 chances—matching New Jersey's volume. But the Devils converted three times from identical rush volume, and that efficiency edge, layered with Allen's elite performance, proved decisive.

New Jersey showed clinical finishing in the high-danger zone, converting two of four chances (50%). Both teams crashed the net with similar frequency—five rebound opportunities each—but only the Devils converted one; Toronto finished zero times. Variance and execution separated two teams that played an even game underneath the final margin.

The Three Stars:

#86 J. Hughes (NJD) — 3G in 18:53
#63 J. Bratt (NJD) — 3A in 15:20
#88 W. Nylander (TOR) — 2A in 18:41

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 21

NJD

TOR

Devils pull away from the Maple Leafs

Chances 3.7 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Devils earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

NJD

3.70

TOR

3.32

53% of the chances47%

The board read NJD 5, TOR 2. The chances read NJD 3.7, TOR 3.3.

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

Luck check

NJD

+1.3

goals above expected

NJD3.70 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

TOR3.32 expected · 2 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 06:36TORJ. Tavares0–1
P2 01:27NJDJ. Hughes1–1
P2 03:20NJDC. GlassPP2–1
P2 04:54NJDB. Dillon3–1
P2 07:03TORM. Maccelli3–2
P2 16:17NJDJ. Hughes4–2
P3 19:30NJDJ. HughesEN5–2

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

Where the shots came from

NJD

46 shots

Final

85 shots

TOR

39 shots

NJD TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

NJDTOR

2 / 4

1.08 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.18 xG

2 / 17

1.97 xG

Medium

1 / 15

1.75 xG

1 / 42

0.65 xG

Low

0 / 38

0.39 xG

The Devils buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

B+

J. Allen

+1.3

NJD · 23/25

A. Stolarz

−0.3

TOR · 30/34

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Devils pull away from the Maple Leafs

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 9–7

06:36TORJ. Tavares(O. Ekman-Larsson, W. Nylander)0–1

2ndshots 16–10

01:27NJDJ. Hughes(J. Bratt, B. Pesce)1–1
03:20NJDC. Glasspower play(T. Meier, L. Hughes)2–1
04:54NJDB. Dillon(L. Glendening, A. Gritsyuk)3–1
07:03TORM. Maccelli(W. Nylander, J. Tavares)3–2
16:17NJDJ. Hughes(J. Bratt, S. Nemec)4–2

3rdshots 10–8

19:30NJDJ. Hughesempty net(J. Bratt)5–2

score reads NJD–TOR

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.70

NJD chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.045

NJD puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

52.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.70Expected goals3.32

NJD 53% of the chance quality

35Shots on goal25

4High-danger chances5

63All attempts (Corsi)58

Adjusted for score: NJD 48% · TOR 52%

Faceoffs · TOR won59%off53%neu31%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

NJD2 / 4 · 1.08 xG

TOR1 / 5 · 1.18 xG

Medium dangermid-range

NJD2 / 17 · 1.97 xG

TOR1 / 15 · 1.75 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

NJD1 / 42 · 0.65 xG

TOR0 / 38 · 0.39 xG

NJD went 2-for-4 from high danger on 1.08 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

NJD

5 G · 3.70 xG · +1.3

TOR

2 G · 3.32 xG · -1.3

0123456

NJD finished +1.3 against expected, TOR -1.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

NJD

WRIST4/26

SNAP0/7

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/4

SLAP1/4

BAT0/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/17

TOR

WRIST0/22

SNAP1/7

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP0/2

BAT1/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/19

NJD

TOR

Off the rush

3 G on 24

1.75 xG

2 G on 24

2.58 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 5

0.74 xG

0 G on 5

0.57 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 4-for-26, TOR 0-for-22. NJD 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

J. Allen

NJD · 23/25 · .920

+1.3

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium1/151.8+0.8

Low0/380.4+0.4

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

A. Stolarz

TOR · 30/34 · .882

-0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/41.1-0.9

Medium2/172.0-0.0

Low1/420.7-0.3

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

NJD

46 shots

Final

85 shots

TOR

39 shots

NJD TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD 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

J. Hughes

#86 · C · NJD

3 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 18:53 on ice · +3

J. Bratt

#63 · L · NJD

0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 15:20 on ice · +3

W. Nylander

#88 · R · TOR

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:41 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 21

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:29 PMEdited 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 2.6 - 2.5 Devils win with New Jersey at 51% to capture this game — toss-a-coin territory, which makes sense: these teams are separated by possession alone.

New Jersey owns the underlying play. The Devils hold 50.0% 5v5 xG and 51.0% Corsi, metrics that usually predict winners. Toronto's 46.0% xG and 45.0% Corsi reflect softer play but not incompetence. The gap is narrow but real, and it favors Jersey.

The Devils' liability is their luck. A 0.971 PDO signals an underperforming puck-luck index — fewer goals relative to their shot profile than you'd expect. New Jersey is due for positive regression, a real advantage but muted when the model caps your win probability at 51%.

Timo Meier drives Jersey's offense at 1.08 xG/60 with 13 goals and 15 assists, anchored by 3 high-danger goals. Jack Hughes has compiled 18 goals and 17 assists across 0.88 xG/60, converting at 11.5%. Johnathan Kovacevic represents the defensive weak link.

Toronto counters with Auston Matthews at 1.10 xG/60, 17 goals and 13 assists. John Tavares adds 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals and 24 assists at 12.4% shooting. Bo Groulx is the defensive vulnerability.

At 51%, the model won't commit. Jersey's slight edge in the details doesn't guarantee the outcome.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NJD 51%

51%

NJD

Model favorite

51%

49%

NJD50TOR

NJD by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NJD 2.6–2.5 TOR; 18% 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

NJD← edge

edge →TOR

50.0%46.0%

51.0%45.0%

2.452.24

2.502.67

1.662.09

2.232.52

0.9711.002

NJD holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 vs 1.002) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

NJD

6-2-2

+4 GD · 3d rest

TOR

4-4-2

+2 GD · 3d rest

0.971

NJD PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Devils own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Devils own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

NJD

Expected in goal

J. Allen

3 days rest.900 last start

Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR

Expected in goal

A. Stolarz

3 days rest.857 last start

Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

NJD

Timo Meier13G 15A

1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh

Jack Hughes18G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% 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