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

Maple Leafs edge the Blues in overtime

The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.28–2.38 and won anyway.

STL 2 · TOR 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:31 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 Maple Leafs won 3–2 despite a decisive xG disadvantage: St. Louis dominated with 3.28 expected goals to Toronto's 2.38, yet Toronto scored the last goal.

The Blues controlled 58% of expected goals at 5v5 — a structural advantage the Leafs simply overpowered. Toronto held 49% of shot attempts (29–30 on goal) while trailing badly in high-danger chances (2–3). This was a heist.

How? Superior goaltending and ruthless finishing. J. Woll stopped 28 of 29 shots (0.966 SV%), gaining 2.28 goals above expected — a performance that stole the game. J. Binnington for St. Louis made 26 saves on 29 shots (0.897 SV%), underperforming his expected save percentage by 0.62 goals.

The turning point arrived in overtime: William Nylander's wrist shot from the doorstep at 04:06. A moment that summed up Toronto's night — clinical execution over sustained control.

Both teams found success on the rush, though inefficiently. Toronto scored 2 goals on 20 rush chances; St. Louis matched that output on 32 rush chances, suggesting neither team converted their transition chances at an exceptional rate. The Blues crashed the net effectively, generating 4 rebound opportunities but converting none.

The Leafs' win hinges entirely on Woll's excellence. He was, statistically, the best player on the ice. O. Ekman-Larsson (1A, 24:37) and M. Rielly (1A, 24:13) contributed on the scoresheet; J. Tavares (1A, 23:43) was present but not dominant. Three different Leafs assisted, spreading credit across a lineup that succeeded despite being outplayed.

St. Louis created chances. Toronto finished. That's the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 18
STL
2
TOR
3

Maple Leafs edge the Blues in overtime

Chances 3.3 – 2.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
3.28
TOR
2.38
58% of the chances42%

The board read STL 2, TOR 3. The chances read STL 3.3, TOR 2.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+0.6
goals above expected
TOR2.38 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
STL3.28 expected · 2 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 01:50STLN. Walker1–0
  2. P1 05:36TORJ. McCabe1–1
  3. P2 09:32TORS. Lorentz1–2
  4. P2 13:18STLD. DvorskyPP2–2
  5. OT 04:06TORW. Nylander2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
48 shots
2
Final
89 shots
TOR
41 shots
3
STL attackTOR attack
STL TOR Goal
48
shots · 2 in
41
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLTOR
0 / 3
0.63 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.40 xG
1 / 18
1.84 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.15 xG
1 / 43
0.80 xG
Low
1 / 40
0.83 xG

The Blues went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Woll
+2.3
TOR · 28/29
D
J. Binnington
−0.6
STL · 26/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs edge the Blues in overtime

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 5–10
  1. 01:50STLN. Walker1–0
  2. 05:36TORJ. McCabe1–1
2ndshots 12–11
  1. 09:32TORS. Lorentz(S. Blais, O. Ekman-Larsson)1–2
  2. 13:18STLD. Dvorskypower play(R. Thomas, C. Fowler)2–2
3rdshots 13–7no goals
    OTshots 0–1
    1. 04:06TORW. Nylander(M. Rielly, J. Tavares)2–3

    score reads STL–TOR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.38
    TOR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.6
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.024
    TOR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    45.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.28Expected goals2.38
    STL 58% of the chance quality
    30Shots on goal29
    3High-danger chances2
    64All attempts (Corsi)54
    Adjusted for score: STL 54% · TOR 46%
    Faceoffs · TOR won48%off44%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    STL0 / 3 · 0.63 xG
    TOR0 / 2 · 0.40 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    STL1 / 18 · 1.84 xG
    TOR2 / 12 · 1.15 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    STL1 / 43 · 0.80 xG
    TOR1 / 40 · 0.83 xG

    TOR went 2-for-12 from medium danger on 1.15 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    STL
    2 G · 3.28 xG · -1.3
    TOR
    3 G · 2.38 xG · +0.6
    01234

    STL finished -1.3 against expected, TOR +0.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    STL
    WRIST0/29
    SLAP0/6
    SNAP1/6
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER1/17
    TOR
    WRIST3/27
    SLAP0/5
    SNAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/2
    TIP IN0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/13
    STL
    TOR
    Off the rush
    2 G on 32
    2.44 xG
    2 G on 20
    1.29 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.57 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.21 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-29, TOR 3-for-27. STL 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
    J. Binnington
    STL · 26/29 · .897
    -0.6
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium2/121.1-0.8
    Low1/400.8-0.2

    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

    J. Woll
    TOR · 28/29 · .966
    +2.3
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.6+0.6
    Medium1/181.8+0.8
    Low1/430.8-0.2

    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
    STL
    48 shots
    2
    Final
    89 shots
    TOR
    41 shots
    3
    STL attackTOR attack
    STL TOR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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
    O. Ekman-Larsson
    #95 · D · TOR
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:37 on ice · +1
    M. Rielly
    #44 · D · TOR
    0 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 24:13 on ice · +1
    J. Tavares
    #91 · C · TOR
    0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 23:43 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Nov 18
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:29 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 sees this as essentially a pick'em: St. Louis at 51% win probability, projected to score 2.5 goals against Toronto's 2.4. There's no edge here.

    Season 5v5 numbers explain why. The Blues lead in expected goals percentage (49.0% to 46.0%) and puck possession (48.0% Corsi to 45.0%), but both teams sit at PDO 1.000 or just above—neither is banking lucky bounces. St. Louis has been leaking goals lately, sitting -10 in goal differential over their last 10 games, which is the kind of recent form that can erase an even-season edge.

    Jimmy Snuggerud drives the St. Louis attack at 0.86 xG per 60 minutes, with 15 goals and 22 assists, shooting 11.9%. He's converted 2 high-danger chances into goals—a meaningful conversion rate that will invite defensive attention. Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, 24 assists) backs that with a 10.8% shooting rate and just 1 high-danger goal, suggesting more of his scoring comes from volume and positioning than conversion luck.

    Toronto counters with Auston Matthews at 1.10 xG per 60—the highest rate in the matchup—combining 17 goals with a modest 10.6% shooting. John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15 goals, 24 assists) is the more dangerous finisher, having converted 3 high-danger chances at a 12.4% rate. That's where Toronto's advantage lies: not in volume, but in how it finishes high-quality looks.

    Here's where it gets strange: both teams are currently posting 0% rates on high-danger and rebound goals. St. Louis and Toronto aren't scoring on their best chances or second looks. This isn't a gap in skill—it's likely noise in a subset of attempts—but it means neither offense is converting at the rate the model expects. That's where the 51% lives: genuine uncertainty about whether either team's finish reverts to form.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    STL 51%
    51%
    STL
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    STL50TOR

    STL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 2.5–2.4 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
    STL← edge
    edge →TOR
    49.0%46.0%
    48.0%45.0%
    2.342.24
    2.402.67
    2.002.09
    2.122.52
    1.0001.002

    STL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 1.002) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    STL
    3-4-3
    -10 GD · 2d rest
    TOR
    4-5-1
    -3 GD · 2d rest
    1.000
    STL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.002
    TOR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Things to watch
    • The Blues are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    STL
    Expected in goal
    J. Hofer
    2 days rest.882 last start
    Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    TOR
    Expected in goal
    J. Woll
    2 days rest.906 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
    STL
    Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
    0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
    Dylan Holloway13G 24A
    0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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