Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
← Sat, Oct 25 · the slate
Breakdown · MTL at VAN

Canadiens hold off the Canucks

FinalSat, Oct 25
MTLMontreal Canadiens4VANVancouver Canucks3
The verdict · stolen

The Canadiens stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.34–4.26 and won anyway.

MTL 4 · VAN 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:09 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

Vancouver controlled this game—56% of expected goals (4.26–3.34), 56% of shot attempts (31–24)—but Montreal won 4–3. A heist.

J. Dobes was the difference. The Montreal goaltender stopped 28 of 31 shots with a 0.903 save percentage, 1.26 goals above expected. K. Lankinen's 0.833 SV% came in 0.66 goals short of expected. That two-goal swing in goaltending was the game.

Both teams scored in transition. Vancouver made 3 goals off 34 rush chances; Montreal made 4 off 28 rush chances—Montreal more efficient, Vancouver less so. On the power play, Vancouver buried 2 of 11 shots; Montreal buried 2 of 9. Both dangerous, neither dominant.

High-danger chances finished 7–7. Neither team converted a rebound opportunity. The game turned on goaltending and efficiency in lower-leverage shots.

The turning point came late in the third: Conor Garland's tip-in from the high slot at 16:13 put Montreal ahead and held.

For Vancouver, this was the frustrating loss. The Canucks owned the underlying metrics and exited empty. E. Pettersson registered 1G, 2A in 21:47. Q. Hughes added 2A in 26:25. I. Demidov contributed 1G, 2A in 13:47 for Montreal.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 25
MTL
4
VAN
3

Canadiens hold off the Canucks

Chances 3.3 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
3.34
VAN
4.26
44% of the chances56%

The board read MTL 4, VAN 3. The chances read MTL 3.3, VAN 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
+0.7
goals above expected
MTL3.34 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN4.26 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 04:42VANE. Pettersson0–1
  2. P2 06:43VANJ. DeBruskPP0–2
  3. P2 15:03MTLN. SuzukiPP1–2
  4. P3 01:50MTLJ. SlafkovskýPP2–2
  5. P3 08:19MTLM. Matheson3–2
  6. P3 11:09MTLI. Demidov4–2
  7. P3 16:13VANC. GarlandPP4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
42 shots
4
Final
93 shots
VAN
51 shots
3
MTL attackVAN attack
MTL VAN Goal
42
shots · 4 in
51
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLVAN
1 / 7
1.69 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.77 xG
2 / 11
1.13 xG
Medium
2 / 15
1.57 xG
1 / 40
0.52 xG
Low
0 / 46
0.91 xG

High-danger looks: MTL 1 of 7, VAN 1 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Dobes
+1.3
MTL · 28/31
D
K. Lankinen
−0.7
VAN · 20/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens hold off the Canucks

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 4–11
  1. 04:42VANE. Pettersson(F. Hronek, C. Garland)0–1
2ndshots 14–10
  1. 06:43VANJ. DeBruskpower play(Q. Hughes, E. Pettersson)0–2
  2. 15:03MTLN. Suzukipower play(I. Demidov, J. Slafkovský)1–2
3rdshots 6–10
  1. 01:50MTLJ. Slafkovskýpower play(I. Demidov, L. Hutson)2–2
  2. 08:19MTLM. Matheson(A. Carrier, Z. Bolduc)3–2
  3. 11:09MTLI. Demidov(A. Carrier, O. Kapanen)4–2
  4. 16:13VANC. Garlandpower play(E. Pettersson, Q. Hughes)4–3

score reads MTL–VAN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.34
MTL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.025
MTL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.34Expected goals4.26
VAN 56% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal31
7High-danger chances7
58All attempts (Corsi)68
Adjusted for score: MTL 48% · VAN 52%
Faceoffs · VAN won58%off32%neu26%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL1 / 7 · 1.69 xG
VAN1 / 7 · 1.77 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL2 / 11 · 1.13 xG
VAN2 / 15 · 1.57 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL1 / 40 · 0.52 xG
VAN0 / 46 · 0.91 xG

VAN went 0-for-46 from low danger on 0.91 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
4 G · 3.34 xG · +0.7
VAN
3 G · 4.26 xG · -1.3
012345

MTL finished +0.7 against expected, VAN -1.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
WRIST3/3
SNAP0/27
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN0/1
SLAP1/4
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/16
VAN
WRIST1/32
SNAP0/0
BACKHAND0/5
TIP IN2/7
SLAP0/3
WRAP AROUND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/17
MTL
VAN
Off the rush
4 G on 28
2.43 xG
3 G on 34
2.46 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.29 xG
0 G on 10
1.62 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 3-for-3, VAN 1-for-32. MTL 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. Dobes
MTL · 28/31 · .903
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.8+0.8
Medium2/151.6-0.4
Low0/460.9+0.9

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

K. Lankinen
VAN · 20/24 · .833
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.7+0.7
Medium2/111.1-0.9
Low1/400.5-0.5

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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
42 shots
4
Final
93 shots
VAN
51 shots
3
MTL attackVAN attack
MTL VAN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, VAN 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
E. Pettersson
#40 · C · VAN
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 21:47 on ice · +2
I. Demidov
#93 · R · MTL
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 13:47 on ice
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · VAN
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 26:25 on ice · +1
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, 1:08 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

Montreal's 51% win probability isn't a prediction—it's a shrug. The model projects 2.6 to 2.5 goals in Montreal's favor; the difference amounts to randomness.

Montreal owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Canadiens generate 48.0% of expected goals to Vancouver's 44.0%, and 49.0% of shot attempts to the Canucks' 46.0%. That underlying edge matters. It doesn't guarantee a win.

What might cancel it out: regression. Montreal's PDO of 1.018 means they're converting at an unsustainable clip—variance will pull them downward. Vancouver's PDO of 0.974 is the inverse: the Canucks are running cold and due for positive regression. In a single game, neither reversal is guaranteed, but both are directionally real.

Both teams face goaltending uncertainty. T. Demko is on a back-to-back for Vancouver; whether he starts or a backup takes the net affects everything. S. Montembeault faces the same situation for Montreal. A tired starter plays differently from a fresh one—if either goalie is gassed, it erases preparation advantages.

Three Stars

Cole Caufield (Montreal) — 33 goals, 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes, and a 20.0% shooting rate. He's clicking at the rate that wins games individually. The Canucks' defensive design around neutralizing him will likely determine whether Montreal's xG advantage translates.

Filip Chytil (Vancouver) — 1.03 expected goals per 60 minutes on just 3 goals. Chytil is high-variance—he's generating chances at an elite rate but hasn't converted. Vancouver needs variance to reverse in his direction; one game could do it.

Drew O'Connor (Vancouver) — 13 goals, 0.85 xG/60, shooting at 11.8%. O'Connor is a secondary threat who punches above his expected output, useful ballast if Chytil's regression cuts one way or another.

Oliver Kapanen (Montreal) carries 0.83 xG/60 with 19 goals and a 17.8% shooting rate—solid secondary scoring that adds depth but won't move the needle alone.

The Pick

Take Montreal at pick'em or better. The underlying play is real enough to trust, even if the model won't commit beyond 51%. Vancouver's PDO suggests positive regression is coming, but "coming eventually" and "tonight" are different propositions. Goaltending noise cuts both ways; that's the one true coin flip. When you have edge and uncertainty canceling out, edge wins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MTL 51%
51%
MTL
Model favorite
51%
49%
MTL50VAN

MTL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MTL 2.6–2.5 VAN; 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
MTL← edge
edge →VAN
48.0%44.0%
49.0%46.0%
2.412.22
2.622.81
2.241.60
1.962.56
1.0180.974

MTL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 0.974) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MTL
6-4-0
+3 GD · 1d rest
VAN
6-4-0
+6 GD · 1d rest
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.974
VAN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Canadiens own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Canadiens own the underlying play — 48.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • T. Demko is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • S. Montembeault is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MTL
Expected in goal
S. Montembeault
back-to-back.793 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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.

VAN
Expected in goal
T. Demko
back-to-back.943 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page