Backcheck
Recap · NJD at TOR

Devils pull away from the Maple Leafs

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

By the ModelJul 11, 12:32 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
NJD
New Jersey Devils
5
Home
TOR
Toronto Maple Leafs
2
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.70Expected goals3.32
53% share for the better side
35Shot attempts (SOG)25
4High-danger chances5
63Corsi (all attempts)58
Score-adjusted: 48% / 52%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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
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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. AllenNJD
+1.3
A. StolarzTOR
-0.3

NJD finished +1.3 against expected, TOR -1.3 — J. Allen (NJD) saved 1.3 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Hughes
#86 · C · NJD
3 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 18:53 TOI · +3
J. Bratt
#63 · L · NJD
0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 15:20 TOI · +3
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:41 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • J. Allen (NJD) stopped 1.3 goals above expected.
  • NJD was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/4 on HD chances (50%).
  • TOR was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 24 rush chances.
  • NJD was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 24 rush chances.
  • TOR created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • NJD created 5 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · NJD at TOR · 7:00 PM ET

Devils at Maple Leafs: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 12:29 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
NJD
Model favorite
51%
49%
NJD50TOR

NJD by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NJD 2.62.5 TOR; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

NJD← edge
edge →TOR
50.0%5v5 xG%46.0%
51.0%Corsi%45.0%
2.45xGF / 602.24
2.50xGA / 602.67
1.66Goals for / gm2.09
2.23Goals against / gm2.52
0.971PDO — luck, not skill1.002

NJD holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.971 vs 1.002) says TOR has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters