Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
← Thu, Dec 4 · the slate
Breakdown · TOR at CAR

Maple Leafs pull away from the Hurricanes

FinalThu, Dec 4
TORToronto Maple Leafs5CARCarolina Hurricanes1
The verdict · earned

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

TOR 5 · CAR 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:56 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's 5-1 victory over Carolina masked a much tighter underlying game. Expected goals split 4.28–4.77 in Toronto's favor—less than half a goal apart—yet the scoreboard showed a four-goal chasm.

The Hurricanes dominated possession, holding 58% of shot attempts with 33 shots on goal to Toronto's 24. High-danger chances split 7–8 (Carolina to Toronto), statistically even. The issue wasn't volume; it was precision. Carolina scored zero on seven high-danger opportunities, underperforming their 4.28 xG by 3.28 goals.

Toronto's edge was efficiency. The Maple Leafs generated 0.122 expected goals per shot versus Carolina's 0.054—more than double. Off the rush, it showed: five goals on 23 attempts, a conversion rate that turned an even game into a rout. Bobby McMann's backhander from a sharp angle at 18:16 of the third period provided the cushion.

Goaltending deepened the margin. D. Hildeby stopped all seven high-danger chances he faced, posting 1.000 with a +1.17 goals-saved-above-expected mark. J. Woll saved 2.11 above expected on 23 stops. F. Andersen allowed 0.77 above expected with a 0.826 save percentage.

M. Knies (1G, 1A in 18:04), M. Domi (2A in 14:52), and N. Roy (2A in 14:36) orchestrated the offense.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 4
TOR
5
CAR
1

Maple Leafs pull away from the Hurricanes

Chances 4.8 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
4.77
CAR
4.28
53% of the chances47%

The board read TOR 5, CAR 1. The chances read TOR 4.8, CAR 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+0.2
goals above expected
TOR4.77 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
CAR4.28 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Hurricanes left 3.3 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:53TORB. McMann1–0
  2. P1 11:45TORS. Laughton2–0
  3. P1 15:45CARS. Jarvis2–1
  4. P2 04:44TORM. Knies3–1
  5. P2 10:39TORA. Matthews4–1
  6. P3 18:16TORB. McMannEN5–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
33 shots
5
Final
88 shots
CAR
55 shots
1
TOR attackCAR attack
TOR CAR Goal
33
shots · 5 in
55
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORCAR
2 / 8
2.73 xG
High danger
0 / 7
1.84 xG
2 / 16
1.81 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.51 xG
1 / 15
0.23 xG
Low
0 / 56
0.93 xG

The Hurricanes went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Hildeby
+4.3
TOR · 9/9
A+
J. Woll
+3.3
TOR · 23/24
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs pull away from the Hurricanes

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 7–13
  1. 00:53TORB. McMann(N. Roy, J. McCabe)1–0
  2. 11:45TORS. Laughton(P. Myers, S. Benoit)2–0
  3. 15:45CARS. Jarvis(S. Gostisbehere, S. Aho)2–1
2ndshots 8–11
  1. 04:44TORM. Knies(M. Domi, M. Rielly)3–1
  2. 10:39TORA. Matthews(M. Domi, M. Knies)4–1
3rdshots 9–9
  1. 18:16TORB. McMannempty net(N. Roy)5–1

score reads TOR–CAR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.77
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.115
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
33.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.77Expected goals4.28
TOR 53% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal33
8High-danger chances7
39All attempts (Corsi)79
Adjusted for score: TOR 27% · CAR 73%
Faceoffs · CAR won57%off40%neu35%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TOR2 / 8 · 2.73 xG
CAR0 / 7 · 1.84 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TOR2 / 16 · 1.81 xG
CAR1 / 16 · 1.51 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TOR1 / 15 · 0.23 xG
CAR0 / 56 · 0.93 xG

CAR went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.84 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TOR
5 G · 4.77 xG · +0.2
CAR
1 G · 4.28 xG · -3.3
0123456

TOR finished +0.2 against expected, CAR -3.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TOR
SNAP3/12
WRIST0/12
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND2/3
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/6
CAR
SNAP1/27
WRIST0/6
SLAP0/12
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/24
TOR
CAR
Off the rush
5 G on 23
3.23 xG
1 G on 40
3.73 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.61 xG
0 G on 1
0.23 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TOR went 3-for-12, CAR 1-for-27. 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 · 9/9 · 1.000
+4.3
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.8+1.8
Medium1/161.5+0.5
Low0/560.9+0.9

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 · 23/24 · .958
+3.3
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.8+1.8
Medium1/161.5+0.5
Low0/560.9+0.9

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

F. Andersen
CAR · 19/23 · .826
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.7+0.7
Medium2/161.8-0.2
Low1/150.2-0.8

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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TOR
33 shots
5
Final
88 shots
CAR
55 shots
1
TOR attackCAR attack
TOR CAR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, CAR 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. Knies
#23 · L · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:04 on ice · +2
M. Domi
#11 · C · TOR
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 14:52 on ice · +2
N. Roy
#55 · C · TOR
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 14:36 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 4
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:54 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

Carolina owns this matchup by the numbers, and a tired Toronto starter gives them another edge.

The model projects a 2.3-to-3.0 Hurricanes win at 62% probability. That's dominance in the underlying play finally pricing into expected results.

Start with possession. Carolina generates 56.0% of expected goals at 5-on-5 versus Toronto's 46.0%. The Corsi gap tells the same story: 60.0% for the Hurricanes, 45.0% for the Leafs. The Hurricanes control the terms entirely.

Carolina's running cold where it counts. Their PDO sits at 0.984, a team due for positive regression. Toronto's 1.002 isn't sustainable, but it's proof the Leafs caught breaks. When PDO normalizes, it favors the volume generator.

Rest shapes the matchup. Carolina arrives on four days off; Toronto on one. Watch for J. Woll to either see a backup or skate a back-to-back—either favors the Hurricanes' forecheck.

Auston Matthews drives Toronto at 1.10 expected goals per 60 with 17 goals, 13 assists, and 1 high-danger goal on 10.6% shooting. John Tavares adds 0.91 xG/60, 15 goals, 24 assists, and 3 high-danger goals on 12.4% shooting. Jackson Blake counters at 1.06 xG/60 with 14 goals, 19 assists, and 2 high-danger goals, while Seth Jarvis runs 0.98 xG/60 with 17 goals, 12 assists, and 1 high-danger goal on 11.9% shooting.

Both teams sit at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate. When that randomness normalizes, expect Carolina's volume to convert first.

Toronto's defensive weak link is Bo Groulx; Charles Alexis Legault carries it for Carolina. In a game decided by territorial control, those names rarely matter. The Hurricanes' superior play will.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CAR 62%
62%
CAR
Model favorite
38%
62%
TOR50CAR

CAR by 24 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score TOR 2.3–3.0 CAR; 17% 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 →CAR
46.0%56.0%
45.0%60.0%
2.242.98
2.672.31
2.092.26
2.521.95
1.0020.984

CAR holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.984) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TOR
4-4-2
+0 GD · 1d rest
CAR
5-3-2
-1 GD · 4d rest
1.002
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.984
CAR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Hurricanes own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Hurricanes drive Corsi at 60.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Woll is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Hurricanes' PDO is 0.984 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Hurricanes have 3 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TOR
Expected in goal
J. Woll
back-to-back.962 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.

CAR
Expected in goal
B. Bussi
4 days rest1.000 last start
Backup Brandon Bussi · +2.8 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
CAR
Jackson Blake14G 19A
1.06 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.9% sh
Seth Jarvis17G 12A
0.98 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page