Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Thu, Dec 11 · the slate
Breakdown · SJS at TOR

Sharks edge the Maple Leafs in overtime

Final / OTThu, Dec 11
SJSSan Jose Sharks3TORToronto Maple Leafs2
The verdict · earned

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

SJS 3 · TOR 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:49 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

The Sharks controlled this game and nearly paid for it. They dominated expected goals 4.80–3.40 (58% share at 5v5), commanded high-danger chances 11–5, and still barely escaped in overtime because both teams left an offensive crime scene behind.

The Maple Leafs held just 48% of shot attempts (30 on goal to 32) yet stayed within a goal—a testament to how badly the Sharks squandered their looks. San Jose underperformed their xG by 1.80 goals; Toronto underperformed theirs by 1.40. The difference between a blowout and a thriller was puck luck.

Goaltending drove the variance. A. Nedeljkovic stopped 28 of 30, posting a 0.933 SV%, beating his expected save percentage by 1.40. D. Hildeby faced 32 shots and stopped 29—a 0.906 mark—yet stole 1.80 goals above expectation, an extraordinary performance on high-danger chances (11 shots faced, 91% SV%).

The Leafs were lethal on transition, converting 2 goals on 31 rush chances, and crashed the net effectively (3 rebound opportunities created). The Sharks generated seven rebound chances but only converted one, highlighting their inefficiency despite the territorial edge.

Alexander Wennberg ended the argument at 02:49 of overtime with a wrist shot from the doorstep.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Dec 11
SJS
3
TOR
2

Sharks edge the Maple Leafs in overtime

Chances 4.8 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
4.80
TOR
3.40
59% of the chances42%

The board read SJS 3, TOR 2. The chances read SJS 4.8, TOR 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
−1.8
goals above expected
SJS4.80 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR3.40 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 14:33TORD. Joshua0–1
  2. P2 14:32TORA. MatthewsPP0–2
  3. P2 15:31SJSD. Orlov1–2
  4. P3 18:35SJSJ. KlingbergPP2–2
  5. OT 02:49SJSA. Wennberg3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
42 shots
3
Final
86 shots
TOR
44 shots
2
SJS attackTOR attack
SJS TOR Goal
42
shots · 3 in
44
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSTOR
1 / 11
2.88 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.31 xG
1 / 12
1.34 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.41 xG
1 / 35
0.58 xG
Low
0 / 41
0.68 xG

High-danger looks: SJS 1 of 11, TOR 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Hildeby
+1.8
TOR · 29/32
B+
A. Nedeljkovic
+1.4
SJS · 28/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks edge the Maple Leafs in overtime

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 11–11
  1. 14:33TORD. Joshua(J. McCabe, W. Nylander)0–1
2ndshots 8–14
  1. 14:32TORA. Matthewspower play(W. Nylander, M. Rielly)0–2
  2. 15:31SJSD. Orlov(J. Klingberg, A. Wennberg)1–2
3rdshots 11–5
  1. 18:35SJSJ. Klingbergpower play(M. Celebrini, A. Wennberg)2–2
OTshots 2–0
  1. 02:49SJSA. Wennberg(W. Eklund)3–2

score reads SJS–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.80
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.017
SJS puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
50.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.80Expected goals3.40
SJS 59% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal30
11High-danger chances5
58All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: SJS 53% · TOR 47%
Faceoffs · TOR won60%off65%neu58%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS1 / 11 · 2.88 xG
TOR1 / 5 · 1.31 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS1 / 12 · 1.34 xG
TOR1 / 12 · 1.41 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS1 / 35 · 0.58 xG
TOR0 / 41 · 0.68 xG

SJS went 1-for-11 from high danger on 2.88 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
3 G · 4.80 xG · -1.8
TOR
2 G · 3.40 xG · -1.4
0123456

SJS finished -1.8 against expected, TOR -1.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SJS
WRIST2/31
SLAP1/5
SNAP0/2
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/16
TOR
WRIST0/25
SLAP0/4
SNAP1/5
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/14
SJS
TOR
Off the rush
1 G on 27
2.85 xG
2 G on 31
2.72 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 7
1.62 xG
0 G on 3
0.21 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SJS went 2-for-31, TOR 0-for-25. 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
A. Nedeljkovic
SJS · 28/30 · .933
+1.4
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.3+0.3
Medium1/121.4+0.4
Low0/410.7+0.7

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 · 29/32 · .906
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/112.9+1.9
Medium1/121.3+0.3
Low1/350.6-0.4

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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SJS
42 shots
3
Final
86 shots
TOR
44 shots
2
SJS attackTOR attack
SJS TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS 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
A. Wennberg
#21 · C · SJS
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 22:09 on ice · +2
J. Klingberg
#3 · D · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:38 on ice · +2
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 21:57 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 11
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:48 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 2.5-2.5 game with Toronto at 50% win probability—a pick'em.

Toronto has momentum: 6-2-2 over their last 10 games reflects real offensive output. San Jose sits at -11 goal differential over the same span, suggesting they're failing to convert their chances.

The advanced metrics tell a different story. San Jose's 48.0% xG% and 47.0% Corsi% both exceed Toronto's 46.0% and 45.0%. These gaps are narrow—statistical noise, essentially—but they matter. San Jose's PDO sits at 0.998 (slightly unlucky), Toronto's at 1.002 (slightly lucky), meaning luck hasn't explained the results yet.

A. Nedeljkovic's back-to-back status clouds the goaltending matchup—he might be fresh on the bench or fatigued in net, either way favoring San Jose.

The individual scorers reveal Toronto's advantage. Auston Matthews (1.10 xG/60, 17G) and John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15G) have converted at 10.6% and 12.4% respectively. Tavares's 3 high-danger goals show his scoring came from premium areas. Pavol Regenda (1.10 xG/60, 5G, 16.1% shooting) and Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60, 6G, 15.0% shooting) shoot at higher rates but have scored far fewer goals overall—a sign Toronto's top two have separated from the pack. Regenda is marked as likely inactive, anyway.

Both teams register 0% on high-danger and rebound goal rates. San Jose's defensive weakness centers on Chernyshov; Toronto's on Bo Groulx.

The model calls this even. The underlying data slightly favors San Jose's underlying chances but Toronto's output. That's a tie.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TOR 50%
50%
TOR
Model favorite
50%
50%
SJS50TOR

TOR by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score SJS 2.5–2.5 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
SJS← edge
edge →TOR
48.0%46.0%
47.0%45.0%
2.332.24
2.562.67
1.992.09
2.322.52
0.9981.002

SJS holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.002) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SJS
4-6-0
-11 GD · 1d rest
TOR
6-2-2
+9 GD · 2d rest
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.002
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • A. Nedeljkovic is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Maple Leafs are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 in their last 10).
  • The Sharks are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
SJS
Expected in goal
A. Nedeljkovic
back-to-back.897 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
2 days rest1.000 last start
Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 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
SJS
Pavol Regenda5G 1A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% 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