Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater

Breakdown · TOR at PHI

Maple Leafs pull away from the Flyers

FinalSat, Nov 1

TORToronto Maple Leafs5 PHIPhiladelphia Flyers2

The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.42–4.10 and won anyway.

TOR 5 · PHI 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:13 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

Toronto's 5-2 win concealed a Flyers dominance that didn't translate to the scoreboard. Philadelphia held 55% of shot attempts and led 4.10–3.42 in expected goals, yet exited empty.

The underlying numbers exposed two key failures for the Flyers. They underperformed their xG by 2.10 goals—the gap between a competitive result and a loss. Philadelphia generated five rebound chances and converted zero. D. Vladar (PHI) surrendered 1.50 more goals than expected, a performance well below his workload.

Toronto turned limited chances into a decisive margin through precision and goaltending. The Maple Leafs overperformed their xG by 1.58 goals. A. Stolarz (TOR) delivered the difference: 31 saves against 33 shots, a +2.10 mark. High-danger chances split evenly at 5–5, but execution proved decisive.

Rush play favored neither team in volume—both sides scored twice on the transition. Toronto converted on 22 rush chances; Philadelphia got 2 on 33. The Leafs' superior efficiency, paired with Stolarz's brilliance, overwhelmed a Flyers team that dominated possession.

Calle Jarnkrok's wrist shot from the wing (P3, 19:42) marked the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 1

TOR

PHI

Maple Leafs pull away from the Flyers

Chances 3.4 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Flyers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

3.42

PHI

4.10

45% of the chances55%

The board read TOR 5, PHI 2. The chances read TOR 3.4, PHI 4.1.

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

Luck check

TOR

+1.6

goals above expected

TOR3.42 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

PHI4.10 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Maple Leafs scored 1.6 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 01:09PHIC. Dvorak0–1
P1 06:16TORA. Matthews1–1
P2 08:14TORJ. McCabe2–1
P2 17:34TORN. Robertson3–1
P3 00:33TORE. Cowan4–1
P3 16:08PHIT. FoersterPP4–2
P3 19:42TORC. JarnkrokEN5–2

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

Where the shots came from

TOR

37 shots

Final

89 shots

PHI

52 shots

TOR PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORPHI

1 / 5

1.71 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.01 xG

3 / 14

1.25 xG

Medium

1 / 22

2.36 xG

1 / 31

0.46 xG

Low

0 / 45

0.73 xG

High-danger looks: TOR 1 of 5, PHI 1 of 5.

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

In the net

A+

A. Kolosov

+3.4

PHI · 7/7

A. Stolarz

+2.1

TOR · 31/33

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs pull away from the Flyers

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 6–7

01:09PHIC. Dvorak(N. Grebenkin, T. Konecny)0–1
06:16TORA. Matthews(M. Rielly, N. Robertson)1–1

2ndshots 12–7

08:14TORJ. McCabe(C. Tanev, M. Maccelli)2–1
17:34TORN. Robertson(M. Knies, J. Tavares)3–1

3rdshots 9–19

00:33TORE. Cowan(J. Tavares)4–1
16:08PHIT. Foersterpower play(T. Zegras, M. Michkov)4–2
19:42TORC. Jarnkrokempty net(D. Joshua, S. Benoit)5–2

score reads TOR–PHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.42

TOR chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.072

TOR puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

41.0%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.42Expected goals4.10

PHI 55% of the chance quality

27Shots on goal33

5High-danger chances5

50All attempts (Corsi)72

Adjusted for score: TOR 38% · PHI 62%

Faceoffs · PHI won61%off33%neu38%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR1 / 5 · 1.71 xG

PHI1 / 5 · 1.01 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR3 / 14 · 1.25 xG

PHI1 / 22 · 2.36 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR1 / 31 · 0.46 xG

PHI0 / 45 · 0.73 xG

TOR went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.25 expected goals — 1.8 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

5 G · 3.42 xG · +1.6

PHI

2 G · 4.10 xG · -2.1

0123456

TOR finished +1.6 against expected, PHI -2.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

SNAP4/29

WRIST1/3

SLAP0/1

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/13

PHI

SNAP1/10

WRIST0/21

SLAP1/9

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/5

DEFLECTED0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/20

TOR

PHI

Off the rush

2 G on 22

1.99 xG

2 G on 33

2.58 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.40 xG

0 G on 5

0.76 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TOR went 4-for-29, PHI 1-for-10. TOR scored 2 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

A. Stolarz

TOR · 31/33 · .939

+2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.0+0.0

Medium1/222.4+1.4

Low0/450.7+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

A. Kolosov

PHI · 7/7 · 1.000

+3.4

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.7+0.7

Medium3/141.3-1.8

Low1/310.5-0.5

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

D. Vladar

PHI · 15/19 · .789

-0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.7+0.7

Medium3/141.3-1.8

Low1/310.5-0.5

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

37 shots

Final

89 shots

PHI

52 shots

TOR PHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

J. Tavares

#91 · C · TOR

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 17:01 on ice

N. Robertson

#89 · L · TOR

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:20 on ice · +2

S. Benoit

#2 · D · TOR

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:02 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, 2:12 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

Philadelphia is the model's preferred choice. The forecast calls for a 2.2 to 2.6 goal game with the Flyers at 56% win probability—not a blowout, but a clear edge rooted in how each team plays.

The underlying advantage belongs to Philadelphia. The Flyers command 51.0% expected goals at 5v5 to Toronto's 46.0%, and control Corsi 48.0% to 45.0%. Shot quality sits nearly identical (Toronto 1.002 PDO, Philadelphia 1.008 PDO), which means the split isn't luck—it's sustained execution.

Recent form reinforces the projection. Philadelphia has won at a 6-3-1 pace over their last 10 games; Toronto owns a minus-7 goal differential over the same stretch. The Maple Leafs are treading water despite their roster depth.

Toronto's attacking engine remains formidable on paper. Auston Matthews generates 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes, posting 17 goals and 13 assists at 10.6% shooting, though only one scores from high-danger areas. John Tavares adds 0.91 xG/60 across 15 goals, 24 assists, and three high-danger goals at 12.4% shooting.

Philadelphia answers with depth. Owen Tippett delivers 0.88 xG/60 with 19 goals, 18 assists, two high-danger goals, and 12.1% shooting. Christian Dvorak sits at 0.81 xG/60 with 12 goals, 21 assists, three high-danger goals, and 11.2% shooting. That secondary scoring punch is where the Flyers create separation.

The model's lean on Philadelphia holds up. The 56% projection isn't desperation—it's the math working out.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PHI 56%

56%

PHI

Model favorite

44%

56%

TOR50PHI

PHI by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.2–2.6 PHI; 19% 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 →PHI

46.0%51.0%

45.0%48.0%

2.242.26

2.672.20

2.091.96

2.521.82

1.0021.008

PHI holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.008) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TOR

4-5-1

-7 GD · 3d rest

PHI

6-3-1

+6 GD · 2d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.008

PHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.

Things to watch

The Flyers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Flyers are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
The Maple Leafs are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TOR

Expected in goal

C. Primeau

3 days rest.750 last start

Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PHI

Expected in goal

D. Vladar

2 days rest.970 last start

Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 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

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

PHI

Owen Tippett19G 18A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.1% sh

Christian Dvorak12G 21A

0.81 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.2% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page