Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
← Sat, Nov 1 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at MTL

Canadiens run the Senators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTSat, Nov 1
OTTOttawa Senators3MTLMontreal Canadiens4
The verdict · earned

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

OTT 3 · MTL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:24 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 Canadiens edged the Senators 4-3 in overtime and controlled 61% of expected goals (3.65–2.35)—a dominant margin the scoreboard barely reflected.

Shot attempts (27–17 Canadiens) confirmed the imbalance. The Canadiens generated far higher-quality chances: 0.072 expected goals per shot versus Ottawa's 0.043. The Senators stayed alive through L. Ullmark's 0.852 SV% while S. Montembeault saved 14 of 17 (−0.65 vs. expected).

Both teams excelled on the rush with similar efficiency—the Canadiens scored 4 goals on 26 attempts, Ottawa 3 on 20. The difference was the Canadiens' depth elsewhere. High-danger chances went 6–5 Canadiens, a reflection of sustained offensive pressure.

Alex Newhook's snap shot from the high slot at 1:40 of overtime ended it. The Three Stars were N. Suzuki (2A), C. Caufield (1G, 1A), and D. Batherson (1G, 1A). Suzuki's playmaking and Caufield's scoring embodied the Canadiens' offensive control.

The Senators' tight finish masked a lopsided contest. The Canadiens dictated pace and shot quality; Ottawa hung around through scrappy play and L. Ullmark's sharp work. The xG spread told the truth.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 1
OTT
3
MTL
4

Canadiens run the Senators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.4 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
2.35
MTL
3.65
39% of the chances61%

The board read OTT 3, MTL 4. The chances read OTT 2.4, MTL 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
+0.3
goals above expected
MTL3.65 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT2.35 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 07:05MTLC. Caufield0–1
  2. P1 09:25MTLJ. SlafkovskýPP0–2
  3. P2 11:53OTTD. Batherson1–2
  4. P2 19:49OTTM. Amadio2–2
  5. P3 12:27OTTT. Stützle3–2
  6. P3 17:37MTLI. Demidov3–3
  7. OT 01:40MTLA. Newhook3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
34 shots
3
Final
73 shots
MTL
39 shots
4
OTT attackMTL attack
OTT MTL Goal
34
shots · 3 in
39
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTMTL
2 / 5
1.16 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.54 xG
1 / 8
0.78 xG
Medium
3 / 15
1.65 xG
0 / 42
0.41 xG
Low
0 / 30
0.46 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 2 of 5, MTL 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
L. Ullmark
−0.3
OTT · 23/27
D
S. Montembeault
−0.7
MTL · 14/17
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens run the Senators off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 5–9
  1. 07:05MTLC. Caufield(N. Suzuki)0–1
  2. 09:25MTLJ. Slafkovskýpower play(N. Suzuki, C. Caufield)0–2
2ndshots 7–7
  1. 11:53OTTD. Batherson1–2
  2. 19:49OTTM. Amadio(S. Pinto, A. Zub)2–2
3rdshots 5–9
  1. 12:27OTTT. Stützle(D. Batherson, T. Kleven)3–2
  2. 17:37MTLI. Demidov(L. Hutson, M. Matheson)3–3
OTshots 0–2
  1. 01:40MTLA. Newhook3–4

score reads OTT–MTL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.65
MTL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.024
MTL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
48.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.35Expected goals3.65
MTL 61% of the chance quality
17Shots on goal27
5High-danger chances6
55All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: OTT 55% · MTL 45%
Faceoffs · MTL won53%off44%neu32%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT2 / 5 · 1.16 xG
MTL1 / 6 · 1.54 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT1 / 8 · 0.78 xG
MTL3 / 15 · 1.65 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT0 / 42 · 0.41 xG
MTL0 / 30 · 0.46 xG

MTL went 3-for-15 from medium danger on 1.65 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
3 G · 2.35 xG · +0.7
MTL
4 G · 3.65 xG · +0.3
012345

OTT finished +0.7 against expected, MTL +0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
SNAP1/26
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED1/3
BACKHAND1/1
TIP IN0/2
WRIST0/0
BAT0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/21
MTL
SNAP3/28
SLAP1/4
DEFLECTED0/1
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/0
WRIST0/1
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/12
OTT
MTL
Off the rush
3 G on 20
2.03 xG
4 G on 26
2.76 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 3
0.52 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-26, MTL 3-for-28. 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
L. Ullmark
OTT · 23/27 · .852
-0.3
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.5+0.5
Medium3/151.6-1.4
Low0/300.5+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

S. Montembeault
MTL · 14/17 · .824
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.2-0.8
Medium1/80.8-0.2
Low0/420.4+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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
34 shots
3
Final
73 shots
MTL
39 shots
4
OTT attackMTL attack
OTT MTL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, MTL 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
N. Suzuki
#14 · C · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:06 on ice
C. Caufield
#13 · R · MTL
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:55 on ice
D. Batherson
#19 · R · OTT
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:40 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 1
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:11 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 Ottawa at 55% win probability in a game it sees at 2.6–2.4 Senators. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Ottawa dominates the underlying possession game. The Senators generate 56.0% of expected goals at 5v5 to Montreal's 48.0%, and control shot attempts at 53.0% Corsi against Montreal's 49.0%. But Montreal's recent run—8-2-0 in their last ten games—obscures a PDO gap: Montreal sits at 1.018, running hot on luck, while Ottawa's 0.993 suggests the reverse. That variance alone explains why the model won't lean hard either direction.

Brady Tkachuk drives Ottawa's offense at 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes, combining 11 goals and 20 assists with only a 7.5% shooting rate, suggesting upside if he tightens his finish. His 2 high-danger goals underscore elite positioning. Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60, 13 goals, 15 assists, 9.5% shooting) is the secondary threat, though he's underperforming relative to his volume.

Montreal counters with Cole Caufield, whose 0.97 xG per 60 contradicts his 33-goal, 16-assist total—he's shooting at an unsustainable 20.0% rate. Oliver Kapanen (0.83 xG/60, 19 goals, 12 assists) represents Montreal's more reliable secondary option at 17.8% shooting.

Both teams generate 0% high-danger and rebound goals, a tactical mirror that caps their ceilings despite Ottawa's superior shot volume. Nick Jensen is Ottawa's defensive vulnerability; Mike Matheson plays the same role for Montreal.

The model's reluctance to separate these teams makes sense. Ottawa outplays Montreal in every measurable way except recent results. Whether Montreal's 8-2-0 streak survives the statistical pressure, or Ottawa's dominance finally converts to wins, remains genuinely unsettled. The 55% Senators line respects both outcomes.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 55%
55%
OTT
Model favorite
55%
45%
OTT50MTL

OTT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.6–2.4 MTL; 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
OTT← edge
edge →MTL
56.0%48.0%
53.0%49.0%
2.662.41
2.122.62
2.182.24
1.991.96
0.9931.018

OTT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
OTT
5-4-1
+1 GD · 2d rest
MTL
8-2-0
+10 GD · 3d rest
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Canadiens are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
2 days rest.897 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MTL
Expected in goal
J. Dobes
3 days rest.857 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page