Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater

Breakdown · UTA at TOR

Maple Leafs run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalWed, Nov 5

UTAUtah Hockey Club3 TORToronto Maple Leafs5

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 3 · TOR 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:42 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 dominated not because they shot more—they were out-shot 24–19—but because they shot better. The Maple Leafs won 5-3 despite holding only 44% of shot attempts, yet controlled 62% of 5v5 expected goals (3.53–2.14). Quality over volume decides hockey games.

The Leafs generated 0.086 xG per shot; Utah managed 0.046. They were clinical in the high-danger zone—2 of 5 chances (40%)—and lethal on the rush: four goals on 22 attempts. Utah matched that lethality on the rush (two goals on 24), but the efficiency gap was insurmountable.

Both teams overperformed their xG—Leafs by 1.47 goals, Mammoth by 0.86—but Toronto's control was too wide to overcome. A. Stolarz (Toronto) saved 21 of 24 shots (0.875 SV%), while V. Vanecek (Utah) saved 14 of 18 (0.778 SV%).

Dylan Guenther's wrist shot from the slot (period 3, 18:53) marked the turning point, though the game's outcome was decided in the xG differential.

J. McCabe paced Toronto with 2 assists in 23:42. M. Knies (1G–1A in 20:10) and W. Nylander (1G–1A in 19:28) finished the display.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 5

UTA

TOR

Maple Leafs run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.1 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

2.14

TOR

3.53

38% of the chances62%

The board read UTA 3, TOR 5. The chances read UTA 2.1, TOR 3.5.

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

Luck check

TOR

+1.5

goals above expected

TOR3.53 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

UTA2.14 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

P1 18:49UTAM. Carcone1–0
P2 04:46TORW. Nylander1–1
P2 08:56TORA. Matthews1–2
P2 16:27UTAM. Sergachev2–2
P3 08:06TORJ. Tavares2–3
P3 15:40TORM. Maccelli2–4
P3 17:01TORM. KniesEN2–5

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

UTA

36 shots

Final

69 shots

TOR

33 shots

UTA TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTATOR

0 / 2

0.45 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.71 xG

2 / 10

1.08 xG

Medium

2 / 14

1.41 xG

1 / 34

0.61 xG

Low

1 / 22

0.41 xG

The Maple Leafs buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

V. Vanecek

−0.5

UTA · 14/18

D-

A. Stolarz

−0.9

TOR · 21/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs run the Mammoth 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 8–5

18:49UTAM. Carcone(L. Crouse)1–0

2ndshots 8–7

04:46TORW. Nylander(M. Knies, J. Tavares)1–1
08:56TORA. Matthews(M. Maccelli, J. McCabe)1–2
16:27UTAM. Sergachev(D. Simashev)2–2

3rdshots 8–7

08:06TORJ. Tavares(B. McMann, O. Ekman-Larsson)2–3
15:40TORM. Maccelli(D. Joshua, M. Rielly)2–4
17:01TORM. Kniesempty net(W. Nylander, J. McCabe)2–5
18:53UTAD. Guenther(N. Schmidt, J. Marino)3–5

score reads UTA–TOR

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.53

TOR chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.057

TOR puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

47.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.14Expected goals3.53

TOR 62% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal19

2High-danger chances5

46All attempts (Corsi)41

Adjusted for score: UTA 54% · TOR 46%

Faceoffs · TOR won17%off59%neu77%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA0 / 2 · 0.45 xG

TOR2 / 5 · 1.71 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA2 / 10 · 1.08 xG

TOR2 / 14 · 1.41 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA1 / 34 · 0.61 xG

TOR1 / 22 · 0.41 xG

UTA went 2-for-10 from medium danger on 1.08 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

3 G · 2.14 xG · +0.9

TOR

5 G · 3.53 xG · +1.5

0123456

UTA finished +0.9 against expected, TOR +1.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

WRIST2/26

SLAP1/5

SNAP0/1

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/0

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/10

TOR

WRIST3/20

SLAP0/4

SNAP1/4

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND1/3

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/8

UTA

TOR

Off the rush

2 G on 24

1.80 xG

4 G on 22

1.95 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.03 xG

0 G on 3

0.36 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-26, TOR 3-for-20. TOR 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

V. Vanecek

UTA · 14/18 · .778

-0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.7-0.3

Medium2/141.4-0.6

Low1/220.4-0.6

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 · 21/24 · .875

-0.9

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium2/101.1-0.9

Low1/340.6-0.4

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

69 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

36 shots

Final

69 shots

TOR

33 shots

UTA TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA 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

J. McCabe

#22 · D · TOR

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 23:42 on ice · +2

M. Knies

#23 · L · TOR

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:10 on ice · +1

W. Nylander

#88 · R · TOR

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:28 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Nov 5

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:39 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

Utah's model projects a 54% win probability, with expected scoring of 2.7 to 2.4. This is a genuine coin flip.

The Mammoth own the underlying play at 5v5. Utah projects 52.0% expected goals and 53.0% Corsi, signaling consistent territorial dominance. Toronto's 46.0% xG and 45.0% Corsi tell a different story—the Leafs are being outshot in quality and quantity, which compounds over 60 minutes.

Rest edge swings back toward Toronto. The Maple Leafs carry just one day of recovery into this game; Utah has three. In a matchup this even, that scheduling advantage is meaningful and partially erases the Mammoth's structural edge.

A. Stolarz takes the net for Toronto on the back half of a back-to-back. That fatigue risk becomes the single biggest wildcard—Utah's territorial edge only matters if converted into goals, and a worn starter multiplies the chances Toronto steals one.

The player matchups reveal competing strengths. Dylan Guenther (28 goals, 1.02 xG/60, 3 high-danger goals) is Utah's engine, while Auston Matthews answers with 1.10 xG/60 but only 17 goals, suggesting Toronto's conversion struggles even from prime chances. John Tavares (15 goals, 12.4% shooting) provides secondary scoring for the Leafs, while Daniil But (2 goals, 5.6% shooting) represents Utah depth that remains dramatically underperforming relative to his underlying impact.

Both teams sit at 0% for high-danger goals and 0% for rebound scoring, meaning execution in transition and from the blue line becomes decisive. Utah's Maveric Lamoureux and Toronto's Bo Groulx are the defensive weak links most likely to crack. The team that minimizes those exposures wins a game this close.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 54%

54%

UTA

Model favorite

54%

46%

UTA50TOR

UTA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 2.7–2.4 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

UTA← edge

edge →TOR

52.0%46.0%

53.0%45.0%

2.642.24

2.392.67

2.262.09

1.992.52

1.0031.002

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

UTA

7-3-0

+8 GD · 3d rest

TOR

6-3-1

+1 GD · 1d rest

1.003

UTA 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 Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
A. Stolarz is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Mammoth have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

3 days rest.880 last start

Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR

Expected in goal

A. Stolarz

back-to-back.919 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.

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

UTA

Dylan Guenther28G 15A

1.02 xG/60 · 3 HD · 16.8% sh

Daniil But2G 2A

1.01 xG/60 · 1 HD · 5.6% 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

Back to the front page