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

Maple Leafs steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.84–2.26 and won anyway.

PIT 3 · TOR 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:29 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

Pittsburgh dominated the game on paper. The Penguins controlled 63% of expected goals at 5v5, outshooting Toronto 37–20, and generated three high-danger chances to Toronto's two. The scoreboard, though, said 4–3 Leafs. This was a heist.

The difference was goaltending and finishing. A. Stolarz stopped 34 of 37 Penguins attempts for a 0.919 save percentage, beating his expected mark by 0.84 goals. T. Jarry, meanwhile, surrendered 1.74 more goals than his underlying numbers predicted, allowing 4 goals on just 20 shots. Toronto overperformed its xG by 1.74 goals overall—either elite shot placement or lucky bounces, probably both.

But there was method to Toronto's night. The Leafs were clinical off the rush, converting 2 of their 20 rush chances. Pittsburgh matched that efficiency—2 goals from 29 rush opportunities—yet it wasn't enough. Bobby McMann's wrist shot from the slot at 13:43 of the third period proved decisive, a goal that broke through Pittsburgh's expected-goal advantage.

The Three Stars tell the story. W. Nylander led Toronto with 2 goals and an assist across 19:04 of ice time. B. Kindel answered for Pittsburgh with 2 goals in 22:23. A. Matthews added a goal and assist for Toronto in 21:58. None of it mattered quite as much as those saves Stolarz made when it counted.

Pittsburgh's dominance in underlying metrics—the shot volume, the controlled looks, the xG edge—won't show up in the standings. Toronto's win did.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 3
PIT
3
TOR
4

Maple Leafs steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

Chances 3.8 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
3.84
TOR
2.26
63% of the chances37%

The board read PIT 3, TOR 4. The chances read PIT 3.8, TOR 2.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+1.7
goals above expected
TOR2.26 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT3.84 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Maple Leafs scored 1.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 13:08PITE. Karlsson1–0
  2. P1 17:56PITB. Kindel2–0
  3. P2 11:50PITB. KindelPP3–0
  4. P3 03:31TORA. Matthews3–1
  5. P3 04:47TORW. Nylander3–2
  6. P3 06:55TORW. Nylander3–3
  7. P3 13:43TORB. McMann3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
53 shots
3
Final
84 shots
TOR
31 shots
4
PIT attackTOR attack
PIT TOR Goal
53
shots · 3 in
31
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITTOR
1 / 3
1.01 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.45 xG
2 / 19
2.06 xG
Medium
3 / 14
1.51 xG
0 / 57
0.77 xG
Low
1 / 21
0.31 xG

High-danger looks: PIT 1 of 3, TOR 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Stolarz
+0.8
TOR · 34/37
F
T. Jarry
−1.7
PIT · 16/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

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 8–5
  1. 13:08PITE. Karlsson(S. Crosby, P. Tomasino)1–0
  2. 17:56PITB. Kindel(R. Shea, V. Koivunen)2–0
2ndshots 17–3
  1. 11:50PITB. Kindelpower play(E. Malkin, B. Rust)3–0
3rdshots 12–12
  1. 03:31TORA. Matthews(J. McCabe, W. Nylander)3–1
  2. 04:47TORW. Nylander(M. Knies, M. Rielly)3–2
  3. 06:55TORW. Nylander(O. Ekman-Larsson, A. Matthews)3–3
  4. 13:43TORB. McMann(N. Robertson, M. Rielly)3–4

score reads PIT–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.26
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.070
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
31.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.84Expected goals2.26
PIT 63% of the chance quality
37Shots on goal20
3High-danger chances2
79All attempts (Corsi)37
Adjusted for score: PIT 65% · TOR 35%
Faceoffs · TOR won42%off59%neu80%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT1 / 3 · 1.01 xG
TOR0 / 2 · 0.45 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT2 / 19 · 2.06 xG
TOR3 / 14 · 1.51 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT0 / 57 · 0.77 xG
TOR1 / 21 · 0.31 xG

TOR went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.51 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
3 G · 3.84 xG · -0.8
TOR
4 G · 2.26 xG · +1.7
012345

PIT finished -0.8 against expected, TOR +1.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST2/30
SLAP0/7
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED1/3
OTHER0/26
TOR
WRIST1/19
SLAP0/4
SNAP2/5
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/6
PIT
TOR
Off the rush
2 G on 29
2.44 xG
2 G on 20
1.67 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 5
0.96 xG
1 G on 3
0.52 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 2-for-30, TOR 1-for-19. PIT 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
T. Jarry
PIT · 16/20 · .800
-1.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium3/141.5-1.5
Low1/210.3-0.7

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. Stolarz
TOR · 34/37 · .919
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/31.0+0.0
Medium2/192.1+0.1
Low0/570.8+0.8

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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
53 shots
3
Final
84 shots
TOR
31 shots
4
PIT attackTOR attack
PIT TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT 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
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:04 on ice · +2
B. Kindel
#81 · C · PIT
2 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 22:23 on ice · +1
A. Matthews
#34 · C · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 21:58 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Nov 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:28 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

Pittsburgh holds a narrow edge in a game the model has rated essentially even. The Penguins project to 52% win probability with an expected score of 2.7–2.5—the definition of a pick'em.

The advantage resides in territorial dominance. Pittsburgh runs Corsi at 50.0% to Toronto's 45.0%, meaning the Penguins control play location and generate 51.0% of expected goals at 5v5 compared to Toronto's 46.0%. Both teams sit near league-average conversion luck (Pittsburgh's PDO 1.012, Toronto's 1.002), so the underlying quality gap isn't masked by goaltending variance.

For Pittsburgh, Rickard Rakell carries the throughline. He averages 1.01 expected goals per 60 minutes, has converted 13 times, and maintains a 12.1% shooting rate on top of 3 high-danger goals—a combination that edges close games toward the puck-possessing team.

Toronto's counter is two elite finishers. Auston Matthews leads with 17 goals and 1.10 xG/60, shooting at 10.6%, while John Tavares has 15 goals on nearly identical 0.91 xG/60 but punches at 12.4% and has produced 3 high-danger goals. When these two get looks, they finish.

On paper, territorial advantage should tip the scales. Pittsburgh's possession edge is structural—it limits high-danger looks and forces lower-quality attempts. But Toronto's finisher caliber can collapse that gap in a single game, which is why the model won't pick a side. Pittsburgh wins if it enforces its play style and stays stingy on chances. Toronto wins if it forces puck chaos and executes on limited opportunities. The model sees both paths as equally probable.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 53%
53%
PIT
Model favorite
53%
47%
PIT50TOR

PIT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.7–2.5 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
PIT← edge
edge →TOR
51.0%46.0%
50.0%45.0%
2.662.24
2.552.67
2.452.09
2.122.52
1.0121.002

PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.002) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PIT
6-2-2
+11 GD · 2d rest
TOR
5-4-1
-1 GD · 2d rest
1.012
PIT 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 Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PIT
Expected in goal
A. Silovs
2 days rest.879 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR
Expected in goal
A. Stolarz
2 days rest.939 last start
Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 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
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% 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