Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater

Breakdown · TOR at CBJ

Blue Jackets pull away from the Maple Leafs

FinalWed, Oct 29

TORToronto Maple Leafs3 CBJColumbus Blue Jackets6

The verdict · stolen

The Blue Jackets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.45–2.32 and won anyway.

TOR 3 · CBJ 6

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:49 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 Blue Jackets defeated Toronto 6-3 despite getting outplayed on the scorecard that matters most: expected goals. Columbus posted 2.32 xG while Toronto generated 4.45, giving the Maple Leafs 66% of expected goals at 5v5. This was a robbery.

Shot profile explains part of the gap. Toronto took 36 shots to Columbus's 24 (40% for the Jackets), and quality followed their volume: Toronto generated 0.063 xG per shot versus Columbus's 0.039. The Maple Leafs had the better looks. E. Merzlikins stopped them anyway.

Merzlikins finished 33-for-36 (0.917 SV%), beating his expected total by 1.45 goals. C. Primeau allowed six on 24 shots (0.750 SV%), surrendering 3.68 more than expected.

Columbus compensated with ruthlessness in spots that mattered. They converted 2-of-4 high-danger chances (50%), while Toronto managed 4-of-6. In the rush, Columbus scored five goals on 20 chances; Toronto, despite more control, scored just twice on 32. Columbus also buried two from low-danger territory—the trash that defines +3.7 overperformance. Nicholas Robertson's wrist shot from a sharp angle at 18:10 of the third proved the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 29

TOR

CBJ

Blue Jackets pull away from the Maple Leafs

Chances 4.5 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

4.45

CBJ

2.32

66% of the chances34%

The board read TOR 3, CBJ 6. The chances read TOR 4.5, CBJ 2.3.

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

Luck check

CBJ

+3.7

goals above expected

CBJ2.32 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

TOR4.45 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blue Jackets scored 3.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 06:56CBJC. Sillinger0–1
P1 11:16CBJZ. Werenski0–2
P2 02:43TORS. Blais1–2
P2 08:33CBJI. Provorov1–3
P2 13:24CBJC. Sillinger1–4
P2 16:58CBJD. Fabbro1–5
P3 07:50CBJM. Olivier1–6

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

TOR

52 shots

Final

88 shots

CBJ

36 shots

TOR CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORCBJ

1 / 6

1.39 xG

High danger

2 / 4

0.83 xG

2 / 19

2.34 xG

Medium

2 / 7

0.80 xG

0 / 46

0.73 xG

Low

2 / 48

0.69 xG

The Blue Jackets buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

B+

E. Merzlikins

+1.4

CBJ · 33/36

C. Primeau

−3.7

TOR · 18/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets 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 9–6

06:56CBJC. Sillinger(C. Coyle, M. Olivier)0–1
11:16CBJZ. Werenski(C. Coyle, M. Olivier)0–2

2ndshots 18–7

02:43TORS. Blais(J. McCabe, S. Lorentz)1–2
08:33CBJI. Provorov(D. Voronkov, K. Marchenko)1–3
13:24CBJC. Sillinger(C. Coyle, Z. Werenski)1–4
16:58CBJD. Fabbro(M. Olivier, C. Sillinger)1–5

3rdshots 9–11

07:50CBJM. Olivier(C. Coyle)1–6
15:45TORJ. Tavares(M. Knies, N. Robertson)2–6
18:10TORN. Robertson(M. Domi, S. Blais)3–6

score reads TOR–CBJ

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.32

CBJ chances

Goals their shots were worth

+3.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.059

CBJ puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

45.4%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.45Expected goals2.32

TOR 66% of the chance quality

36Shots on goal24

6High-danger chances4

71All attempts (Corsi)59

Adjusted for score: TOR 61% · CBJ 39%

Faceoffs · CBJ won50%off70%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR1 / 6 · 1.39 xG

CBJ2 / 4 · 0.83 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR2 / 19 · 2.34 xG

CBJ2 / 7 · 0.80 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR0 / 46 · 0.73 xG

CBJ2 / 48 · 0.69 xG

CBJ went 2-for-48 from low danger on 0.69 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

3 G · 4.45 xG · -1.4

CBJ

6 G · 2.32 xG · +3.7

01234567

TOR finished -1.4 against expected, CBJ +3.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST1/21

SNAP1/15

SLAP0/2

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/3

BAT1/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/19

CBJ

WRIST5/15

SNAP0/9

SLAP0/8

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND1/2

DEFLECTED0/0

BAT0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/23

TOR

CBJ

Off the rush

2 G on 32

2.68 xG

5 G on 20

1.43 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 7

1.20 xG

1 G on 2

0.15 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 1-for-21, CBJ 5-for-15. CBJ scored 5 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

C. Primeau

TOR · 18/24 · .750

-3.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/40.8-1.2

Medium2/70.8-1.2

Low2/480.7-1.3

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

E. Merzlikins

CBJ · 33/36 · .917

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.4+0.4

Medium2/192.3+0.3

Low0/460.7+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

52 shots

Final

88 shots

CBJ

36 shots

TOR CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, CBJ 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

C. Coyle

#3 · C · CBJ

0 G · 4 A · 0 SOG · 14:54 on ice · +5

M. Olivier

#24 · R · CBJ

1 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 14:03 on ice · +4

C. Sillinger

#4 · C · CBJ

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 16:20 on ice · +4

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Oct 29

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:46 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 TOR 2.3 - 2.8 CBJ game with the Blue Jackets at 57% win probability—a reflection of their clear edge in 5v5 play.

Columbus dominates the underlying metrics. They're generating shots at 52.0% expected goals share to Toronto's 46.0%, and controlling territory at 51.0% Corsi to Toronto's 45.0%. These aren't narrow edges; they're the kind of play-driving advantage that typically translates to wins.

Both teams face back-to-back goaltending. J. Greaves tends goal for Columbus while A. Stolarz plays for Toronto, and fatigue—or a backup appearance—could tip the advantage either direction.

Toronto's threat comes from efficiency despite territorial disadvantage. Auston Matthews drives at 1.10 xG/60, posting 17G 13A with 1 HD goal and 10.6% shooting. John Tavares complements him at 0.91 xG/60, 15G 24A, with 3 HD goals and 12.4% shooting—higher conversion than Matthews despite lower volume. Bo Groulx is Toronto's defensive weak link.

Columbus counters with balanced production. Boone Jenner leads at 0.98 xG/60 with 11G 21A, 2 HD goals, and 9.6% shooting, while Mathieu Olivier offers secondary punch: 0.89 xG/60, 12G 9A, 1 HD goal, and a sharp 13.3% shooting rate. Conor Garland is Columbus's defensive weak link.

The verdict sits in the possession numbers. Columbus's 52.0% xG share isn't variance—it's structural. Toronto will need to outlast the territorial disadvantage through goaltending or convert at high rates. PDO (TOR 1.002, CBJ 1.003) suggests both teams' underlying luck is normalized, so sustained advantage goes to whoever controls play. Columbus does.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 57%

57%

CBJ

Model favorite

43%

57%

TOR50CBJ

CBJ by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.3–2.8 CBJ; 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

TOR← edge

edge →CBJ

46.0%52.0%

45.0%51.0%

2.242.63

2.672.43

2.092.12

2.521.98

1.0021.003

CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.003) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TOR

5-4-1

-1 GD · 1d rest

CBJ

5-5-0

+0 GD · 1d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

CBJ PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
J. Greaves is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Stolarz is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TOR

Expected in goal

A. Stolarz

back-to-back.897 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.

CBJ

Expected in goal

J. Greaves

back-to-back.921 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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.

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

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

CBJ

Boone Jenner11G 21A

0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh

Mathieu Olivier12G 9A

0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page