Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
Breakdown · BUF at TOR

Maple Leafs edge the Sabres in overtime

The verdict · coin flip

The Maple Leafs won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

BUF 3 · TOR 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:05 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 Maple Leafs won 4-3 in a game the underlying metrics nearly called even. Toronto held just 47% of shot attempts—23 shots on goal to Buffalo's 26—yet overperformed its expected goals by 1.15. The scoreline exceeded what the underlying play suggested.

Expected goals were close: 2.85–2.65 in Toronto's favor, a 52–48 split. High-danger chances nearly matched at 4–3. But goaltending and efficiency separated the teams.

U. Luukkonen (BUF) underperformed by 1.2 goals, with Buffalo scoring two low-danger goals the opposing goalie should have stopped. Toronto's rush attack was lethal: four goals on 21 rush chances. Buffalo, on the same rush workload, scored twice. C. Primeau (TOR) saved 23 of 26.

John Tavares settled it at 01:28 of overtime with a wrist shot from the high slot.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 25
BUF
3
TOR
4

Maple Leafs edge the Sabres in overtime

Chances 2.6 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Maple Leafs took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
2.65
TOR
2.85
48% of the chances52%

The board read BUF 3, TOR 4. The chances read BUF 2.6, TOR 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+1.1
goals above expected
TOR2.85 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
BUF2.65 expected · 3 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
  1. P1 13:40BUFT. Thompson1–0
  2. P1 18:33TORN. Robertson1–1
  3. P2 01:59TORM. Maccelli1–2
  4. P2 14:23BUFB. Byram2–2
  5. P3 07:06BUFT. ThompsonPP3–2
  6. P3 13:10TORD. Joshua3–3
  7. OT 01:28TORJ. Tavares3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
35 shots
3
Final
71 shots
TOR
36 shots
4
BUF attackTOR attack
BUF TOR Goal
35
shots · 3 in
36
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFTOR
0 / 3
0.62 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.11 xG
1 / 14
1.54 xG
Medium
2 / 9
1.11 xG
2 / 39
0.48 xG
Low
1 / 38
0.62 xG

The Sabres went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
C. Primeau
−0.3
TOR · 23/26
D-
U. Luukkonen
−1.1
BUF · 19/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs edge the Sabres in overtime

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 12–6
  1. 13:40BUFT. Thompson(J. Kulich, M. Samuelsson)1–0
  2. 18:33TORN. Robertson(E. Cowan, A. Matthews)1–1
2ndshots 6–11
  1. 01:59TORM. Maccelli(J. Tavares, M. Knies)1–2
  2. 14:23BUFB. Byram(C. Timmins, R. McLeod)2–2
3rdshots 7–5
  1. 07:06BUFT. Thompsonpower play(J. Zucker, R. Dahlin)3–2
  2. 13:10TORD. Joshua(J. McCabe, B. Carlo)3–3
OTshots 1–1
  1. 01:28TORJ. Tavares(M. Knies)3–4

score reads BUF–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.85
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.025
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
47.7%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.65Expected goals2.85
TOR 52% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal23
3High-danger chances4
56All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: BUF 53% · TOR 47%
Faceoffs · TOR won71%off59%neu72%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BUF0 / 3 · 0.62 xG
TOR1 / 4 · 1.11 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BUF1 / 14 · 1.54 xG
TOR2 / 9 · 1.11 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BUF2 / 39 · 0.48 xG
TOR1 / 38 · 0.62 xG

BUF went 2-for-39 from low danger on 0.48 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BUF
3 G · 2.65 xG · +0.3
TOR
4 G · 2.85 xG · +1.1
012345

BUF finished +0.3 against expected, TOR +1.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BUF
WRIST3/23
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/2
SNAP0/1
WRAP AROUND0/3
BACKHAND0/2
POKE0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/21
TOR
WRIST3/22
TIP IN1/5
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
BACKHAND0/1
POKE0/0
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/15
BUF
TOR
Off the rush
2 G on 21
1.66 xG
4 G on 21
2.27 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.40 xG
0 G on 3
0.33 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 3-for-23, TOR 3-for-22. 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
U. Luukkonen
BUF · 19/23 · .826
-1.1
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.1+0.1
Medium2/91.1-0.9
Low1/380.6-0.4

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

C. Primeau
TOR · 23/26 · .885
-0.3
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.6+0.6
Medium1/141.5+0.5
Low2/390.5-1.5

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

71 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
BUF
35 shots
3
Final
71 shots
TOR
36 shots
4
BUF attackTOR attack
BUF TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF 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 · TOR
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 22:26 on ice · +2
T. Thompson
#72 · C · BUF
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 18:35 on ice
J. Tavares
#91 · C · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 17:23 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 25
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:01 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 Buffalo at 52% win probability in a 2.6–2.5 game. This is as close to a toss-up as hockey gets.

Buffalo owns the underlying play. The Sabres control 50.0% of 5v5 expected goals against 46.0% for Toronto and generate 49.0% Corsi against Toronto's 45.0%, establishing territorial dominance. But that edge comes with a catch: Buffalo's 1.020 PDO is running hot, and regression is inevitable. Toronto sits at 1.002, closer to the line.

The Maple Leafs are -6 in goal differential over their last 10 games, which tracks their season-long struggle to convert chances into wins. Yet the models still give them a puncher's chance, largely because the underlying metrics are closer than the recent results suggest.

Goaltending uncertainty adds another layer. A. Stolarz is on a back-to-back, as is A. Lyon. Either starter could be fresh or fatigued—or the teams could pivot to backups entirely. That's a variable neither team fully controls.

The skill gap sits with Buffalo's forwards. Jason Zucker leads at 1.07 expected goals per 60 minutes, backed by 14 goals and 14 assists with 6 high-danger goals at a 15.1% shooting percentage. Josh Doan runs 1.01 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists but only 2 high-danger goals, his 11.5% shooting rate a sign that volume isn't converting at an elite clip. Both threaten, but neither represents the finisher Toronto will counter with.

Auston Matthews carries 1.10 xG/60, the game's highest rate, with 17 goals and 13 assists—though he's managed just 1 high-danger goal at 10.6% shooting, a hint that elite chances aren't finding the back of the net at the frequency his underlying play merits. John Tavares offers a secondary threat at 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals and 24 assists, including 3 high-danger tallies at 12.4%.

The Sabres will rely on dominating the second chance—they're at 0% rebound-goal rate and 0% high-danger-goal rate, meaning they're either converting on the first opportunity or not at all. Jack Quinn represents their defensive weak link. Toronto mirrors that dependency: 0% HD-goal rate, 0% rebound-goal rate, with Bo Groulx as the defensive liability.

This matchup lives in the margins. Buffalo has the meta advantage; Toronto has the star power and resilience. The probability split reflects genuine uncertainty, not a model hedging its bets.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 52%
52%
BUF
Model favorite
52%
48%
BUF50TOR

BUF by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 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
BUF← edge
edge →TOR
50.0%46.0%
49.0%45.0%
2.552.24
2.552.67
2.352.09
1.902.52
1.0201.002

BUF holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.002) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
BUF
4-5-1
-2 GD · 1d rest
TOR
3-5-2
-6 GD · 1d rest
1.020
BUF 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 Sabres own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Sabres drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Sabres own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Sabres drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • A. Stolarz is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • A. Lyon is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
BUF
Expected in goal
A. Lyon
back-to-back.912 last start
Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR
Expected in goal
A. Stolarz
back-to-back.833 last start
Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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
BUF
Jason Zucker14G 14A
1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh
Josh Doan15G 18A
1.01 xG/60 · 2 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