Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
Breakdown · TOR at MTL

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

The verdict · earned

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

TOR 2 · MTL 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:14 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

Toronto didn't register a single high-danger chance and scored twice anyway. That's the starkest measure of Montreal's dominance—not the 5-2 final, but the fact that the Maple Leafs had to manufacture goals from nowhere while the Canadiens were suffocating quality across the board.

Montreal's underlying numbers explain why. The Canadiens held 73% of expected goals at 5v5 (4.02 to 1.51), controlled 53% of shot attempts (29 to 26), and turned the rush into an advantage: three goals on 31 chances versus Toronto's two on 22. The Canadiens' xG per shot (0.066) nearly tripled Toronto's (0.027)—they didn't just generate more chances, they generated smarter ones.

Josh Anderson's snap shot from the point at 17:50 in the third period was the turning point.

Montreal overperformed their expected goals by 0.98, but goaltending tells the real story. D. Hildeby was perfect in limited time (3 for 3, 1.000 SV%), then J. Woll took over and stopped 21 of 25 (0.840 SV%). Hildeby saved 4.0 goals above expected—a performance that should have buried Toronto's chances entirely. Montreal's J. Dobes, by contrast, allowed exactly what the numbers predicted: 24 saves on 26 shots (0.923 SV%).

Toronto's only argument: they generated higher-quality chances than their shot total suggested. A small consolation when Montreal was so much more ruthless with everything that followed.

Three Stars

  • #8 M. Matheson (MTL) — 2A in 23:26
  • #53 N. Dobson (MTL) — 2G in 20:44
  • #88 W. Nylander (TOR) — 1G, 1A in 19:53
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 22
TOR
2
MTL
5

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

Chances 1.5 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
1.51
MTL
4.02
27% of the chances73%

The board read TOR 2, MTL 5. The chances read TOR 1.5, MTL 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
+1.0
goals above expected
MTL4.02 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR1.51 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 12:11MTLL. Hutson0–1
  2. P1 13:33MTLN. Dobson0–2
  3. P2 04:09MTLN. Dobson0–3
  4. P2 13:11MTLJ. Anderson0–4
  5. P2 17:19TORO. Ekman-Larsson1–4
  6. P3 14:55TORW. NylanderPP2–4
  7. P3 17:50MTLJ. AndersonEN2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
38 shots
2
Final
83 shots
MTL
45 shots
5
TOR attackMTL attack
TOR MTL Goal
38
shots · 2 in
45
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORMTL
0 / 0
0.00 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.53 xG
0 / 8
0.85 xG
Medium
3 / 20
1.95 xG
2 / 47
0.66 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.54 xG

High-danger looks: TOR 0 of 0, MTL 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Hildeby
+4.0
TOR · 3/3
C
J. Woll
+0.0
TOR · 21/25
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens run the Maple Leafs 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 11–9
  1. 12:11MTLL. Hutson(N. Suzuki, C. Caufield)0–1
  2. 13:33MTLN. Dobson(M. Matheson, I. Demidov)0–2
2ndshots 6–17
  1. 04:09MTLN. Dobson(I. Demidov, J. Slafkovský)0–3
  2. 13:11MTLJ. Anderson(F. Xhekaj)0–4
  3. 17:19TORO. Ekman-Larsson(E. Cowan, W. Nylander)1–4
3rdshots 9–3
  1. 14:55TORW. Nylanderpower play(M. Rielly, M. Maccelli)2–4
  2. 17:50MTLJ. Andersonempty net(M. Matheson, J. Evans)2–5

score reads TOR–MTL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.02
MTL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.046
MTL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
52.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.51Expected goals4.02
MTL 73% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal29
0High-danger chances6
55All attempts (Corsi)61
Adjusted for score: TOR 54% · MTL 46%
Faceoffs · MTL won43%off41%neu54%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TOR0 / 0 · 0.00 xG
MTL1 / 6 · 1.53 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TOR0 / 8 · 0.85 xG
MTL3 / 20 · 1.95 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TOR2 / 47 · 0.66 xG
MTL1 / 35 · 0.54 xG

TOR went 2-for-47 from low danger on 0.66 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TOR
2 G · 1.51 xG · +0.5
MTL
5 G · 4.02 xG · +1.0
0123456

TOR finished +0.5 against expected, MTL +1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TOR
SNAP2/30
SLAP0/2
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
WRIST0/1
OTHER0/17
MTL
SNAP4/32
SLAP1/7
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
WRIST0/0
OTHER0/16
TOR
MTL
Off the rush
2 G on 22
1.13 xG
3 G on 31
2.72 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.14 xG
0 G on 2
0.44 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TOR went 2-for-30, MTL 4-for-32. MTL 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
D. Hildeby
TOR · 3/3 · 1.000
+4.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.5+0.5
Medium3/201.9-1.1
Low1/350.5-0.5

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

J. Woll
TOR · 21/25 · .840
+0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.5+0.5
Medium3/201.9-1.1
Low1/350.5-0.5

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

J. Dobes
MTL · 24/26 · .923
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
Medium0/80.8+0.8
Low2/470.7-1.3

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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TOR
38 shots
2
Final
83 shots
MTL
45 shots
5
TOR attackMTL attack
TOR MTL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, MTL 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
M. Matheson
#8 · D · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:26 on ice · +3
N. Dobson
#53 · D · MTL
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:44 on ice · +1
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:53 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 22
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:12 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

The model projects a 2.4 - 2.7 Toronto win with Montreal at 54% probability. This is pick'em territory.

Toronto trails in expected goals share at 46.0% xG%, but Montreal's territorial edge—49.0% Corsi%—masks a team running hot. Montreal's 1.018 PDO suggests regression is coming; they won't sustain this goaltending luck indefinitely. Toronto's more modest 1.002 PDO sits closer to sustainable.

But Montreal's form is deceptive. Over their last 10 games, they're -13 in goal differential despite driving play—a sign that their underlying performance hasn't translated to wins. Back-to-back games pressure both pipes: watch whether J. Dobes and J. Woll are starters or rested in favor of backups.

The forward matchups are asymmetrical. Auston Matthews leads Toronto at 1.10 xG/60 with 17 goals and a 10.6% shooting rate; he's elevated by opportunity volume but also clinical finishing. John Tavares runs 0.91 xG/60 but has converted at 12.4%, a sign he's punishing what he gets. For Montreal, Cole Caufield owns 33 goals at 0.97 xG/60—a 20.0% shooting rate that's unsustainable and where Montreal's luck concentrates. Oliver Kapanen (0.83 xG/60, 19 goals) has posted 4 high-danger goals, suggesting his scoring reflects actual chance quality, not luck.

Montreal's Corsi advantage projects to territorial control, but territory without finishing—or with finishes buoyed by PDO—is a trap. Toronto's 46.0% xG% isn't catastrophic; teams have won with worse underlying numbers when goaltending holds.

Defensively, Bo Groulx anchors Toronto's frailties; Mike Matheson carries similar weight for Montreal. Both create soft spots in transition.

This line should be tighter. The model has Montreal slightly favored on play, but the projection itself—2.4 - 2.7—carries low confidence. Coinflips happen when underlying numbers diverge from results, which is exactly where Montreal sits. Take the value wherever you find it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MTL 54%
54%
MTL
Model favorite
46%
54%
TOR50MTL

MTL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.4–2.7 MTL; 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 →MTL
46.0%48.0%
45.0%49.0%
2.242.41
2.672.62
2.092.24
2.521.96
1.0021.018

MTL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TOR
4-4-2
-1 GD · 1d rest
MTL
3-4-3
-13 GD · 1d rest
1.002
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Canadiens drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Canadiens drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Dobes is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • J. Woll is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Canadiens are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TOR
Expected in goal
J. Woll
back-to-back.900 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.

MTL
Expected in goal
J. Dobes
back-to-back.840 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next