Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater

Breakdown · TBL at TOR

Maple Leafs shut out the Lightning, 2-0

FinalMon, Dec 8

TBLTampa Bay Lightning0 TORToronto Maple Leafs2

The verdict · earned

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

TBL 0 · TOR 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:33 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 2-0 shutout looks clean, but the underlying numbers reveal the true divergence. They controlled 60 percent of expected goals (3.96–2.67) and generated eight high-danger chances to Tampa's three. Yet Tampa's fundamental failure eclipses the scoreline: they expected 2.67 goals and scored zero. If both teams had converted at expected levels, the game would have read 3.96–2.67 instead of 2-0.

Toronto's edge was pure efficiency. They took 25 shots to Tampa's 29 but generated 0.086 expected goals per shot versus Tampa's 0.045. That quality gap determined the margin.

Goaltending was excellent on both sides without being decisive. D. Hildeby (TOR) recorded 29/29 saves for a 1.000 save percentage. J. Johansson (TBL) posted 23/24 saves and a 0.958 save percentage. Both massively outperformed their xG — Hildeby by 2.67 goals, Johansson by 2.96 — but Hildeby faced simpler work. Tampa's problem was not poor goaltending; it was poor shot execution. When your xG is 2.67 and your goal total is zero, goaltending becomes ancillary.

Auston Matthews's wrist shot from the wing (P3, 19:59) opened the scoring.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 8

TBL

TOR

Maple Leafs shut out the Lightning, 2-0

Chances 2.7 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TBL

2.67

TOR

3.96

40% of the chances60%

The board read TBL 0, TOR 2. The chances read TBL 2.7, TOR 4.0.

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

Luck check

TOR

−2.0

goals above expected

TOR3.96 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

TBL2.67 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Lightning left 2.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 16:26TORM. Rielly0–1
P3 19:59TORA. MatthewsEN0–2

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

Where the shots came from

TBL

41 shots

Final

79 shots

TOR

38 shots

TBL TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 0 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TBLTOR

0 / 3

0.80 xG

High danger

1 / 8

2.69 xG

0 / 12

1.36 xG

Medium

1 / 6

0.67 xG

0 / 44

0.51 xG

Low

0 / 32

0.60 xG

The Lightning went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

J. Johansson

+3.0

TBL · 23/24

A+

D. Hildeby

+2.7

TOR · 29/29

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs shut out the Lightning, 2-0

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 15–10

16:26TORM. Rielly(E. Cowan, J. Tavares)0–1

2ndshots 5–8no goals

3rdshots 9–7

19:59TORA. Matthewsempty net0–2

score reads TBL–TOR

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.96

TOR chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.0

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.044

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

2.67Expected goals3.96

TOR 60% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal25

3High-danger chances8

59All attempts (Corsi)46

Adjusted for score: TBL 59% · TOR 41%

Faceoffs · TOR won53%off79%neu46%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TBL0 / 3 · 0.80 xG

TOR1 / 8 · 2.69 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TBL0 / 12 · 1.36 xG

TOR1 / 6 · 0.67 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TBL0 / 44 · 0.51 xG

TOR0 / 32 · 0.60 xG

TOR went 1-for-8 from high danger on 2.69 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TBL

0 G · 2.67 xG · -2.7

TOR

2 G · 3.96 xG · -2.0

012345

TBL finished -2.7 against expected, TOR -2.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TBL

WRIST0/26

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN0/4

SNAP0/2

BAT0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/18

TOR

WRIST1/23

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND1/4

TIP IN0/2

SNAP0/3

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/8

TBL

TOR

Off the rush

0 G on 28

2.22 xG

1 G on 22

1.87 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.18 xG

0 G on 2

0.40 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TBL went 0-for-26, TOR 1-for-23.

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. Johansson

TBL · 23/24 · .958

+3.0

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/82.7+1.7

Medium1/60.7-0.3

Low0/320.6+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

D. Hildeby

TOR · 29/29 · 1.000

+2.7

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.8+0.8

Medium0/121.4+1.4

Low0/440.5+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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TBL

41 shots

Final

79 shots

TOR

38 shots

TBL TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 21:20 on ice · +1

A. Matthews

#34 · C · TOR

1 G · 0 A · 8 SOG · 20:07 on ice · +1

J. Tavares

#91 · C · TOR

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 17:43 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Dec 8

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:32 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 the Lightning to win. Its baseline: Tampa Bay 2.7, Toronto 2.4, with the Lightning at 55% win probability.

The underlying advantage is clean. Tampa Bay dominates 5v5 shot quality at 54.0% xG%, versus Toronto's 46.0%. The Lightning also control territory—Corsi sits at 53.0% for Tampa, 45.0% for Toronto. That's a meaningful edge across both volume and quality.

The edge carries a caveat, though. Tampa Bay's PDO of 1.019 is running hot, and regression should be expected; Toronto's 1.002 sits closer to neutral. That tightens the margin.

Both teams have a goaltending concern. D. Hildeby and J. Johansson are each on back-to-back games, creating the possibility of a backup appearance or a tired starter.

The Lightning's attack centers on two producers. Brandon Hagel generates 1.10 xG per 60 minutes and has 23 goals on 15.8% shooting. Anthony Cirelli sits at 0.95 xG/60 but has 5 high-danger goals on 17.0% shooting—a higher conversion rate from a lower-volume player.

Toronto's offense mirrors the profile at the top. Auston Matthews matches Hagel's 1.10 xG/60 and carries 17 goals on 10.6% shooting, along with 13 assists. John Tavares runs 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals and 24 assists on 12.4% shooting.

Tampa Bay's edge sits in the volume and efficiency of its shot profile. Yet PDO regression is real—the Lightning's hot hand won't hold—and both teams' goaltending situations could reshape the outcome.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 55%

55%

TBL

Model favorite

55%

45%

TBL50TOR

TBL by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TBL 2.7–2.4 TOR; 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

TBL← edge

edge →TOR

54.0%46.0%

53.0%45.0%

2.672.24

2.282.67

2.382.09

1.852.52

1.0191.002

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.002) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TBL

7-3-0

+16 GD · 1d rest

TOR

5-3-2

+6 GD · 1d rest

1.019

TBL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
D. Hildeby is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Johansson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TBL

Expected in goal

J. Johansson

back-to-back.944 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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.

TOR

Expected in goal

D. Hildeby

back-to-back.971 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.

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

TBL

Brandon Hagel23G 26A

1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 15.8% sh

Anthony Cirelli15G 18A

0.95 xG/60 · 5 HD · 17.0% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page