Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater

Breakdown · TOR at CBJ

Maple Leafs steal one from the Blue Jackets against the run of play

Final / OTWed, Nov 26

TORToronto Maple Leafs2 CBJColumbus Blue Jackets1

The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.13–4.42 and won anyway.

TOR 2 · CBJ 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:44 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 won 2-1 in overtime despite trailing in expected goals, 4.42–3.13. Columbus controlled 59% of the quality on 5-on-5 play. This was a heist.

The numbers underscore the imbalance. Columbus held 60% of shot attempts (36–24 on goal). They generated six high-danger chances to Toronto's five and created three rebound opportunities. Toronto's two goals came off the rush—lethal on 20 high-speed chances. Columbus could not capitalize: 0-for-6 on premium looks.

The goaltending gap defined the outcome. J. Woll stopped shots at a 0.972 save percentage, landing 3.42 goals above expected. J. Greaves posted 0.917 and ran 1.13 above expected. On high-danger chances, Woll allowed none (6-for-6 stops). This was the deciding factor.

W. Nylander struck at 04:40 of overtime with a wrist shot from the high slot—the sequence that won it. Toronto was clinical when it mattered. Columbus, despite dominance in process, couldn't finish.

The Blue Jackets' underperformance—3.42 goals below their expected output—stung. They owned process but not result. Z. Werenski scored their one goal (28:40 played), the sole Columbus skater to beat superior defending.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Nov 26

TOR

CBJ

Maple Leafs steal one from the Blue Jackets against the run of play

Chances 3.1 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

3.13

CBJ

4.42

41% of the chances59%

The board read TOR 2, CBJ 1. The chances read TOR 3.1, CBJ 4.4.

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

Luck check

TOR

−1.1

goals above expected

TOR3.13 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

CBJ4.42 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blue Jackets left 3.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P3 13:30CBJZ. Werenski0–1
P3 16:43TORE. Cowan1–1
OT 04:40TORW. Nylander2–1

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

Where the shots came from

TOR

40 shots

Final

93 shots

CBJ

53 shots

TOR CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORCBJ

1 / 5

1.24 xG

High danger

0 / 6

1.46 xG

0 / 12

1.30 xG

Medium

0 / 16

1.90 xG

1 / 36

0.59 xG

Low

1 / 46

1.06 xG

The Blue Jackets went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

J. Woll

+3.4

TOR · 35/36

B+

J. Greaves

+1.1

CBJ · 22/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs steal one from the Blue Jackets 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 6–11no goals

2ndshots 9–7no goals

3rdshots 6–14

13:30CBJZ. Werenski(M. Wood)0–1
16:43TORE. Cowan(W. Nylander, J. Tavares)1–1

OTshots 3–4

04:40TORW. Nylander(O. Ekman-Larsson, M. Knies)2–1

score reads TOR–CBJ

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.13

TOR chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.023

TOR puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

43.8%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.13Expected goals4.42

CBJ 59% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal36

5High-danger chances6

53All attempts (Corsi)68

Adjusted for score: TOR 44% · CBJ 56%

Faceoffs · CBJ won48%off21%neu46%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR1 / 5 · 1.24 xG

CBJ0 / 6 · 1.46 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR0 / 12 · 1.30 xG

CBJ0 / 16 · 1.90 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR1 / 36 · 0.59 xG

CBJ1 / 46 · 1.06 xG

CBJ went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.90 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

2 G · 3.13 xG · -1.1

CBJ

1 G · 4.42 xG · -3.4

012345

TOR finished -1.1 against expected, CBJ -3.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST1/23

SNAP1/6

SLAP0/3

TIP IN0/6

BAT0/2

BACKHAND0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/13

CBJ

WRIST0/17

SNAP1/21

SLAP0/8

TIP IN0/2

BAT0/1

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/2

OTHER0/15

TOR

CBJ

Off the rush

2 G on 20

2.03 xG

1 G on 38

3.79 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

0.87 xG

0 G on 3

0.29 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 1-for-23, CBJ 0-for-17. TOR 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. Woll

TOR · 35/36 · .972

+3.4

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.5+1.5

Medium0/161.9+1.9

Low1/461.1+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

J. Greaves

CBJ · 22/24 · .917

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium0/121.3+1.3

Low1/360.6-0.4

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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

40 shots

Final

93 shots

CBJ

53 shots

TOR CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:18 on ice · +2

Z. Werenski

#8 · D · CBJ

1 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 28:40 on ice · -1

O. Ekman-Larsson

#95 · D · TOR

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:30 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Nov 26

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:41 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 2.3 - 2.8 goal margin favoring Columbus, with the Blue Jackets at 57% win probability.

Columbus dominates the underlying play. The Blue Jackets own a 52.0% 5v5 expected goals percentage against Toronto's 46.0%, and they drive possession at 51.0% Corsi to Toronto's 45.0%. Both teams carry nearly identical luck (Toronto 1.002 PDO, Columbus 1.003), so the edge is structural—the Blue Jackets will dictate territory.

The rest advantage compounds the structural edge. Columbus arrives on one day of rest; Toronto comes in on three. Over 60 minutes, that gap accumulates.

Goaltending uncertainty favors Columbus. E. Merzlikins is on a back-to-back, opening the possibility of a backup start or a fatigued starter.

Both teams are struggling equally. Toronto and Columbus each carry -7 goal differential over their last 10 games. The model's confidence in Columbus stems from talent advantage and structure, not momentum.

Toronto's fate depends on Auston Matthews and John Tavares punching above their recent rates. Matthews carries 1.10 xG per 60 minutes with 17 goals and 13 assists, but his 10.6% shooting rate is historically suppressed; regression offers Toronto's primary path. Tavares posts 0.91 xG per 60 at an elite 12.4% shooting rate, providing secondary thrust on 15 goals and 24 assists.

Columbus counters with Boone Jenner at 0.98 xG per 60 (11 goals, 21 assists) and Mathieu Olivier at 0.89 xG per 60 (12 goals on a 13.3% shooting rate). Olivier's conversion rate is the outlier—13.3% is unsustainable and inflates his offensive profile. Jenner carries the more balanced load.

Both teams have generated no hard-chance goals or rebound goals recently, a constraint that shifts emphasis from chaos to sustained possession. Toronto's Bo Groulx represents a defensive vulnerability; Columbus' Conor Garland poses similar risk.

The model sees a clear split: Columbus has talent edge, rest edge, and possession profile to control the game. Toronto's only viable path runs through Matthews punching above historical rates—unlikely, but not impossible.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 57%

57%

CBJ

Model favorite

43%

57%

TOR50CBJ

CBJ by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.3–2.8 CBJ; 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 →CBJ

46.0%52.0%

45.0%51.0%

2.242.63

2.672.43

2.092.12

2.521.98

1.0021.003

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TOR

3-5-2

-7 GD · 3d rest

CBJ

4-3-3

-7 GD · 1d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

CBJ PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Blue Jackets own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Blue Jackets drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
E. Merzlikins is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Blue Jackets are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
The Maple Leafs are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
The Maple Leafs have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TOR

Expected in goal

J. Woll

3 days rest.840 last start

Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CBJ

Expected in goal

E. Merzlikins

back-to-back.839 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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

CBJ

Boone Jenner11G 21A

0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh

Mathieu Olivier12G 9A

0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page