Breakdown · TOR at CHI

Blackhawks hold off the Maple Leafs

FinalSat, Nov 15

TORToronto Maple Leafs2 CHIChicago Blackhawks3

The verdict · earned

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

TOR 2 · CHI 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:14 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

Both goalies posted performances that don't align with the scoreboard. Chicago won 3–2, but the underlying metrics told a different story: the Blackhawks underperformed their 4.36 expected goals by 1.36; the Maple Leafs underperformed 3.86 xG by 1.86. S. Knight (Chicago) recorded a 0.939 save percentage — 1.86 goals above expected — to secure the win. J. Woll (Toronto) also excelled with a 0.906 save percentage, 1.36 goals above expected, but couldn't overcome the Maple Leafs' offensive inefficiency.

The underlying play stayed tight. Chicago controlled 49% of shot attempts (32–33 on goal), with both teams generating seven high-danger chances. Where Chicago separated itself: the rush game. The Blackhawks scored 3 goals on 30 rush attempts, an elite conversion rate. Toronto generated more danger in close, with seven rebound opportunities (converting two) versus Chicago's four (converting none), yet still fell short.

Colton Dach's tip-in from the high slot at 15:35 of the third period proved decisive. O. Ekman-Larsson and W. Nylander created opportunities, while M. Rielly found the net, but the Maple Leafs' shooting inefficiency was too deep to overcome.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 15

TOR

CHI

Blackhawks hold off the Maple Leafs

Chances 3.9 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

3.86

CHI

4.36

47% of the chances53%

The board read TOR 2, CHI 3. The chances read TOR 3.9, CHI 4.4.

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

Luck check

CHI

−1.4

goals above expected

CHI4.36 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

TOR3.86 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Maple Leafs left 1.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 11:05CHIR. Greene0–1
P1 19:12TORN. Robertson1–1
P2 09:37TORM. Rielly2–1
P3 05:12CHIT. Teravainen2–2
P3 15:35CHIC. Dach2–3

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

Where the shots came from

TOR

47 shots

Final

100 shots

CHI

53 shots

TOR CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORCHI

2 / 7

1.58 xG

High danger

1 / 7

1.81 xG

0 / 15

1.72 xG

Medium

1 / 14

1.61 xG

0 / 42

0.56 xG

Low

1 / 38

0.94 xG

High-danger looks: TOR 2 of 7, CHI 1 of 7.

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

In the net

S. Knight

+1.9

CHI · 31/33

B+

J. Woll

+1.4

TOR · 29/32

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blackhawks hold off 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 14–10

11:05CHIR. Greene(A. Levshunov, W. Kaiser)0–1
19:12TORN. Robertson(J. Tavares)1–1

2ndshots 5–11

09:37TORM. Rielly(O. Ekman-Larsson, W. Nylander)2–1

3rdshots 14–11

05:12CHIT. Teravainen(F. Nazar, O. Moore)2–2
15:35CHIC. Dach(L. Crevier, I. Mikheyev)2–3

score reads TOR–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.36

CHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.4

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.020

CHI puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

48.0%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.86Expected goals4.36

CHI 53% of the chance quality

33Shots on goal32

7High-danger chances7

64All attempts (Corsi)59

Adjusted for score: TOR 52% · CHI 48%

Faceoffs · CHI won30%off38%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR2 / 7 · 1.58 xG

CHI1 / 7 · 1.81 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR0 / 15 · 1.72 xG

CHI1 / 14 · 1.61 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR0 / 42 · 0.56 xG

CHI1 / 38 · 0.94 xG

TOR went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.72 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

2 G · 3.86 xG · -1.9

CHI

3 G · 4.36 xG · -1.4

012345

TOR finished -1.9 against expected, CHI -1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST2/33

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/2

SNAP0/2

BACKHAND0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

POKE0/1

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/17

CHI

WRIST1/34

SLAP0/6

TIP IN1/4

SNAP1/3

BACKHAND0/4

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/0

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/6

TOR

CHI

Off the rush

0 G on 21

2.43 xG

3 G on 30

2.29 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 7

1.00 xG

0 G on 4

0.58 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 2-for-33, CHI 1-for-34. CHI scored 3 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

J. Woll

TOR · 29/32 · .906

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.8+0.8

Medium1/141.6+0.6

Low1/380.9-0.1

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. Knight

CHI · 31/33 · .939

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/71.6-0.4

Medium0/151.7+1.7

Low0/420.6+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

100 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

47 shots

Final

100 shots

CHI

53 shots

TOR CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

O. Ekman-Larsson

#95 · D · TOR

0 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 26:41 on ice

M. Rielly

#44 · D · TOR

1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 25:21 on ice

W. Nylander

#88 · R · TOR

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:41 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 15

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:13 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 2.6–2.5 game favoring Toronto, which translates to 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as the numbers produce.

Toronto owns the underlying play. The Maple Leafs generate 46.0% xG while Chicago manages 42.0%, a clean advantage at even strength. But Chicago hasn't ceded ground in shot attempts—their Corsi sits at 46.0% to Toronto's 45.0%—and both teams' PDO numbers (Toronto 1.002, Chicago 0.996) suggest neither is running historically hot or cold on conversion. The underlying edge belongs to Toronto; the finishing rates are neutral.

Goaltending adds friction. D. Hildeby is on a back-to-back, which means either a backup start or a worn starter. That uncertainty tilts slightly toward Chicago's advantage if Hildeby doesn't get relief.

Toronto:

Auston Matthews — 1.10 xG/60, 17G 13A, 1 HD goal, 10.6% shooting
John Tavares — 0.91 xG/60, 15G 24A, 3 HD goals, 12.4% shooting

Chicago:

Tyler Bertuzzi — 0.85 xG/60, 20G 15A, 7 HD goals, 18.0% shooting
Connor Bedard — 0.82 xG/60, 17G 27A, 5 HD goals, 11.8% shooting

Auston Matthews is Toronto's primary threat—highest xG/60, 17 goals, and a sustainable 10.6% shooting rate. John Tavares runs lower volume (0.91 xG/60) but converts at 12.4%. For Chicago, Tyler Bertuzzi leads by shot volume (0.85 xG/60) and finish (18.0% shooting, 7 high-danger goals). Connor Bedard provides secondary volume at similar quality (0.82 xG/60) with elite playmaking (27 assists).

The defensive picture is tight. Toronto's weak link is Bo Groulx; Chicago's is Anton Frondell. Neither team registers measurable high-danger or rebound goal rates at the margins, which suggests structurally sound defense. This isn't a game won by goalie luck or defensive collapse—whoever plays sharper gets the edge.

Toronto's xG advantage is real. Chicago's shot-attempt evenness and neutral conversion rates mean one mistake, one hot goalie performance, or one back-to-back fatigue moment flips the script. That's why this one is a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TOR 51%

51%

TOR

Model favorite

51%

49%

TOR50CHI

TOR by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TOR 2.6–2.5 CHI; 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 →CHI

46.0%42.0%

45.0%46.0%

2.242.17

2.672.94

2.091.84

2.522.41

1.0020.996

TOR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.996) says TOR 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

CHI

5-3-2

+7 GD · 2d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Maple Leafs own the underlying play — 46.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.

Things to watch

The Maple Leafs own the underlying play — 46.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
D. Hildeby 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

D. Hildeby

back-to-back.892 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.

CHI

Expected in goal

S. Knight

2 days rest.892 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A

0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh

Connor Bedard17G 27A

0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page