Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · OTT at MTL

Senators run the Canadiens off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

OTT 5 · MTL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:38 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

Ottawa dominated by shot quality. The Senators generated 4.54 expected goals to Montreal's 2.11, controlling 68% of the 5v5 battle. More striking: high-danger chances favored Ottawa 9–1, a gulf that renders the 5–2 final score understated.

Montreal kept the shot volume reasonably close—22 to 29—but quality diverged sharply. At 0.044 expected goals per shot, the Canadiens generated offense with less efficiency than Ottawa's 0.072. This explains why S. Montembeault, faced with 29 shots, gave up 5 goals. L. Ullmark, facing 22, allowed just 2.

Where Montreal struck. The Canadiens' power play was dangerous: 2 goals on 5 shots (0.42 xG). On the rush, they converted 2 of 23 chances—solid, though Ottawa's rush conversion (4 of 28) still outpaced it.

Where Ottawa separated. The Senators dominated the net-front battle, generating 4 rebound opportunities and converting 1. Brady Tkachuk's snap shot from the high slot at 12:43 of the third period opened the floodgates. J. Spence (2A) and T. Kleven (2A) ran the offense; both logged over 20 minutes.

The underlying margin was comprehensive. Ottawa's attack was sharper, their goaltender more composed under pressure, and their rush execution more lethal. Montreal's offensive sparks—especially the power play—came too sparsely to matter.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 2
OTT
5
MTL
2

Senators run the Canadiens off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.5 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
4.54
MTL
2.11
68% of the chances32%

The board read OTT 5, MTL 2. The chances read OTT 4.5, MTL 2.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+0.5
goals above expected
OTT4.54 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL2.11 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 03:37MTLJ. SlafkovskýPP0–1
  2. P1 04:01OTTF. Zetterlund1–1
  3. P1 16:53OTTA. Zub2–1
  4. P2 05:48OTTJ. Sanderson3–1
  5. P2 06:58OTTD. Batherson4–1
  6. P2 08:50MTLN. SuzukiPP4–2
  7. P3 12:43OTTB. Tkachuk5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
44 shots
5
Final
76 shots
MTL
32 shots
2
OTT attackMTL attack
OTT MTL Goal
44
shots · 5 in
32
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTMTL
3 / 9
2.29 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.21 xG
1 / 13
1.74 xG
Medium
2 / 11
1.31 xG
1 / 41
0.51 xG
Low
0 / 36
0.59 xG

The Senators buried 3 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
L. Ullmark
+0.1
OTT · 20/22
D
S. Montembeault
−0.5
MTL · 24/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators run the Canadiens 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 10–6
  1. 03:37MTLJ. Slafkovskýpower play(C. Caufield, N. Suzuki)0–1
  2. 04:01OTTF. Zetterlund(T. Kleven, J. Spence)1–1
  3. 16:53OTTA. Zub(B. Tkachuk, F. Zetterlund)2–1
2ndshots 11–10
  1. 05:48OTTJ. Sanderson(M. Amadio)3–1
  2. 06:58OTTD. Batherson(T. Kleven, J. Spence)4–1
  3. 08:50MTLN. Suzukipower play(C. Caufield, L. Hutson)4–2
3rdshots 8–6
  1. 12:43OTTB. Tkachuk(T. Stützle, D. Perron)5–2

score reads OTT–MTL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.54
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.038
OTT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
56.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.54Expected goals2.11
OTT 68% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal22
9High-danger chances1
63All attempts (Corsi)48
Adjusted for score: OTT 52% · MTL 48%
Faceoffs · MTL won50%off61%neu32%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT3 / 9 · 2.29 xG
MTL0 / 1 · 0.21 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT1 / 13 · 1.74 xG
MTL2 / 11 · 1.31 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT1 / 41 · 0.51 xG
MTL0 / 36 · 0.59 xG

OTT went 1-for-13 from medium danger on 1.74 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
5 G · 4.54 xG · +0.5
MTL
2 G · 2.11 xG · -0.1
0123456

OTT finished +0.5 against expected, MTL -0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
SNAP3/27
TIP IN0/5
WRIST0/4
SLAP1/4
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/19
MTL
SNAP2/22
TIP IN0/4
WRIST0/3
SLAP0/0
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/16
OTT
MTL
Off the rush
4 G on 28
2.63 xG
2 G on 23
1.74 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
1.00 xG
0 G on 2
0.26 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 3-for-27, MTL 2-for-22. OTT scored 4 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
L. Ullmark
OTT · 20/22 · .909
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium2/111.3-0.7
Low0/360.6+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

S. Montembeault
MTL · 24/29 · .828
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/92.3-0.7
Medium1/131.7+0.7
Low1/410.5-0.5

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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
44 shots
5
Final
76 shots
MTL
32 shots
2
OTT attackMTL attack
OTT MTL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
J. Spence
#10 · D · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 21:01 on ice · +3
T. Kleven
#43 · D · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 20:52 on ice · +3
N. Suzuki
#14 · C · MTL
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:10 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:35 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 likes Ottawa by a hair. The projection: 2.6 goals for the Senators, 2.4 for the Canadiens, 55% win probability—close enough that a coin flip would yield the same answer.

The reason it's so tight: Ottawa controls the underlying play, but Montreal is overperforming its talent. The Senators own 56.0% of 5v5 expected goals against 48.0%. They drive territorial pressure at 53.0% Corsi—they dictate where play happens. But the Canadiens are running hot with a 1.018 PDO, meaning they're converting at rates they won't sustain. Montreal sits at -11 goal differential over its last 10 games, a warning that regression is coming.

The Senators' edge is structural. Brady Tkachuk carries 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes with 11 goals on a 7.5% shooting rate—a sustainable conversion rate against the quality of his chances. Dylan Cozens produces 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals on 9.5% shooting; his rate sits close enough to expectation that variance could break either way. Neither is shooting hot.

Montreal's power depends on unsustainable finishing. Cole Caufield has 33 goals on just 0.97 xG/60, a chasm between opportunity and results. His 20.0% shooting rate, anchored by just 1 high-danger goal, cannot hold. Oliver Kapanen contributes 0.83 xG/60 with 19 goals—4 from high-danger areas—on 17.8% shooting; he too is running well above what his talent suggests.

The defensive weak links tell you where each team bleeds. Nick Jensen is Ottawa's vulnerability. Mike Matheson is Montreal's. Neither team generates meaningful high-danger or rebound-goal volume—both at 0%—so the game lives in shot volume and the conversion rates that will eventually normalize.

The Senators have built a better team. They do the work Montreal does not. But Montreal is shooting like they're destined to win, and hot teams steal games. The model split it down the middle because the edge is genuinely thin. It probably is.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 55%
55%
OTT
Model favorite
55%
45%
OTT50MTL

OTT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.6–2.4 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
OTT← edge
edge →MTL
56.0%48.0%
53.0%49.0%
2.662.41
2.122.62
2.182.24
1.991.96
0.9931.018

OTT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 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
OTT
5-4-1
-2 GD · 2d rest
MTL
4-5-1
-11 GD · 3d rest
0.993
OTT 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 Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Canadiens are underwater at -11 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
OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
2 days rest.769 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MTL
Expected in goal
J. Dobes
3 days rest.806 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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