Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater

Breakdown · TOR at PIT

Maple Leafs pull away from the Penguins

FinalSat, Nov 29

TORToronto Maple Leafs7 PITPittsburgh Penguins2

The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.55–3.92 and won anyway.

TOR 7 · PIT 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:15 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

Pittsburgh controlled this game where it mattered least. The Penguins generated 61% of expected goals (3.92–2.55) but lost 7-2—a result that came down to goaltending and rush-hour precision.

D. Hildeby was immovable. He made 33 of 35 saves (0.943 SV%), posting 1.92 goals above expected against a Penguins team with quality looks throughout. T. Jarry faced only 13 shots yet allowed 1.6 more than expected, a sign that Pittsburgh's workload understates the offensive damage. A. Silovs, spelling Jarry in relief, gave up 2.89 goals above expected across 10 shots—the Penguins' net simply was not ready for Toronto's finish.

The gap widened on the rush. Toronto scored 5 goals on 22 rush chances; Pittsburgh landed 2 on 42. That efficiency swing alone drives most of the scoreboard gap.

Nicholas Robertson's snap from the high slot early in the third (13:16) marked the turning point—when Pittsburgh's underlying control had already ceded to Toronto's execution.

Toronto overperformed its 2.55 xG by 4.45 goals. Pittsburgh underperformed its 3.92 by 1.92. That gap is the entire game: one team finished where it mattered, the other did not.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 29

TOR

PIT

Maple Leafs pull away from the Penguins

Chances 2.5 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Penguins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

2.55

PIT

3.92

39% of the chances61%

The board read TOR 7, PIT 2. The chances read TOR 2.5, PIT 3.9.

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

Luck check

TOR

+4.5

goals above expected

TOR2.55 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

PIT3.92 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Maple Leafs scored 4.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 06:46TORO. Ekman-Larsson1–0
P1 08:14PITB. KindelPP1–1
P1 11:06TORE. Cowan2–1
P2 02:24TORB. McMann3–1
P2 04:53TORD. Joshua4–1
P2 13:58TORN. RoyPP5–1
P3 04:37PITS. Crosby5–2

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

TOR

31 shots

Final

89 shots

PIT

58 shots

TOR PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 7 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORPIT

1 / 2

0.49 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.72 xG

5 / 11

1.41 xG

Medium

2 / 24

2.45 xG

1 / 31

0.65 xG

Low

0 / 59

0.76 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

D. Hildeby

+1.9

TOR · 33/35

T. Jarry

−0.5

PIT · 10/13

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs pull away from the Penguins

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 7–10

06:46TORO. Ekman-Larsson(M. Knies, A. Matthews)1–0
08:14PITB. Kindelpower play(S. Crosby, B. Rust)1–1
11:06TORE. Cowan(W. Nylander, M. Rielly)2–1

2ndshots 8–10

02:24TORB. McMann(M. Rielly, O. Ekman-Larsson)3–1
04:53TORD. Joshua(N. Roy, T. Stecher)4–1
13:58TORN. Roypower play(M. Domi, B. McMann)5–1

3rdshots 8–15

04:37PITS. Crosby(K. Hayes)5–2
07:14TORA. Matthews(M. Domi, M. Knies)6–2
13:16TORN. Robertson7–2

score reads TOR–PIT

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.55

TOR chances

Goals their shots were worth

+4.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.136

TOR puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

33.8%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.55Expected goals3.92

PIT 61% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal35

2High-danger chances3

44All attempts (Corsi)86

Adjusted for score: TOR 29% · PIT 71%

Faceoffs · PIT won70%off25%neu33%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR1 / 2 · 0.49 xG

PIT0 / 3 · 0.72 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR5 / 11 · 1.41 xG

PIT2 / 24 · 2.45 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR1 / 31 · 0.65 xG

PIT0 / 59 · 0.76 xG

TOR went 5-for-11 from medium danger on 1.41 expected goals — 3.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

7 G · 2.55 xG · +4.5

PIT

2 G · 3.92 xG · -1.9

012345678

TOR finished +4.5 against expected, PIT -1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST1/14

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND0/4

SLAP1/3

SNAP4/6

BAT0/0

OTHER0/13

PIT

WRIST0/36

TIP IN0/7

BACKHAND1/6

SLAP0/7

SNAP0/1

BAT1/1

OTHER0/28

TOR

PIT

Off the rush

5 G on 22

1.88 xG

2 G on 42

3.12 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.05 xG

0 G on 2

0.25 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 1-for-14, PIT 0-for-36. TOR scored 5 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 · 33/35 · .943

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium2/242.5+0.5

Low0/590.8+0.8

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

T. Jarry

PIT · 10/13 · .769

-0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.5-0.5

Medium5/111.4-3.6

Low1/310.7-0.3

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

A. Silovs

PIT · 6/10 · .600

-1.4

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.5-0.5

Medium5/111.4-3.6

Low1/310.7-0.3

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

31 shots

Final

89 shots

PIT

58 shots

TOR PIT GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, PIT 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. Rielly

#44 · D · TOR

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 21:10 on ice · +3

M. Knies

#23 · L · TOR

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:17 on ice

A. Matthews

#34 · C · TOR

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:47 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 29

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:14 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

Pittsburgh projects as a lean over Toronto, with the model favoring the Penguins at 57% win probability in what it expects to be a 2.4–2.8 goal game.

The Penguins own the underlying play. They generate 51.0% 5v5 expected goals against Toronto's 46.0%, and control possession at 50.0% Corsi—meaning Pittsburgh will likely dominate territorial play. Both teams are running healthy PDO (Toronto 1.002, Pittsburgh 1.012), so neither is due for significant puck-luck correction.

Recent form complicates the Penguins' edge. Pittsburgh sits at -5 goal differential over their last 10 games, while Toronto is even worse at -11. This suggests neither team is executing cleanly, yet the model still favors Pittsburgh—an indicator that the underlying advantage is substantial enough to overcome current volatility.

Watch for J. Woll in goal for Toronto. On a back-to-back, he may be pulled for a backup or start fatigued, creating opportunity for Pittsburgh.

The Penguins need to contain Auston Matthews, who generates 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes with 17 goals and 13 assists. His 1 high-danger goal falls well short of what his 10.6% shooting rate suggests he should produce—a sign of puck luck due to regress. John Tavares presents a secondary concern: 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals, 24 assists, and a 12.4% shooting rate that also leaves room to cool.

Pittsburgh's advantage centers on Rickard Rakell, who has generated 1.01 xG/60 while converting at 12.1% with 13 goals and 13 assists. His 3 high-danger goals make him the Penguins' most threatening weapon. Support may come from Filip Hallander (1.28 xG/60), though he is likely unavailable as he undergoes further evaluation after a conditioning loan with the AHL.

Toronto's defensive weak link is Bo Groulx; Pittsburgh's is Caleb Jones. Neither team generates meaningful high-danger or rebound goals, both sitting at 0%, so structural breakdown in their own ends is not the story. The separation comes in attack. Pittsburgh's shot generation—51.0% xG% and 50.0% Corsi%—should translate to volume and, in time, goals. The model believes that edge outweighs Toronto's star power.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 57%

57%

PIT

Model favorite

43%

57%

TOR50PIT

PIT by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.4–2.8 PIT; 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 →PIT

46.0%51.0%

45.0%50.0%

2.242.66

2.672.55

2.092.45

2.522.12

1.0021.012

PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TOR

2-6-2

-11 GD · 1d rest

PIT

3-4-3

-5 GD · 2d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
J. Woll is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Penguins are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
The Maple Leafs are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TOR

Expected in goal

J. Woll

back-to-back.909 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.

PIT

Expected in goal

T. Jarry

2 days rest.935 last start

Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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

PIT

Filip Hallander0G 3A

1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh

Rickard Rakell13G 13A

1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page