Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater

Breakdown · CHI at TOR

Maple Leafs hold off the Blackhawks

FinalTue, Dec 16

CHIChicago Blackhawks2 TORToronto Maple Leafs3

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 2 · TOR 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:33 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 57% expected-goal advantage (2.49–1.87) made a 3-2 game look closer than it was. The Maple Leafs commanded 5v5 play, though Chicago extracted maximum damage from limited looks—two goals on 20 rush attempts.

Dakota Joshua's wrist shot from the slot (16:59, third period) broke the tie. Toronto's J. Woll (23/25, 0.920 SV%) neutralized the chances that came his way. Chicago's S. Knight absorbed the imbalance: 24 of 27 saves, 0.889 SV%, -0.51 against expected.

Shot attempts tilted 27–25 in Toronto's favor. The decisive edge was territorial: long stretches in Chicago's end, high-danger chances in Toronto's favor (3–2). When one team spends as much time defending, even a steady goaltender takes on water.

Three Stars:

A. Matthews (TOR) — 1G, 1A, 20:30
W. Nylander (TOR) — 2A, 20:24
J. McCabe (TOR) — 1A, 23:18

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 16

CHI

TOR

Maple Leafs hold off the Blackhawks

Chances 1.9 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

1.87

TOR

2.49

43% of the chances57%

The board read CHI 2, TOR 3. The chances read CHI 1.9, TOR 2.5.

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

Luck check

TOR

+0.5

goals above expected

TOR2.49 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI1.87 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

P1 10:21CHIW. Kaiser1–0
P1 14:58CHIJ. DickinsonSH2–0
P3 09:59TORO. Ekman-Larsson2–1
P3 16:51TORA. MatthewsPP2–2
P3 16:59TORD. Joshua2–3

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

Where the shots came from

CHI

31 shots

Final

73 shots

TOR

42 shots

CHI TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHITOR

0 / 2

0.49 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.57 xG

1 / 7

0.83 xG

Medium

1 / 13

1.31 xG

1 / 39

0.54 xG

Low

1 / 41

0.61 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 0 of 2, TOR 1 of 3.

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

In the net

J. Woll

−0.1

TOR · 23/25

S. Knight

−0.5

CHI · 24/27

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs hold off the Blackhawks

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 10–7

10:21CHIW. Kaiser(D. Toninato)1–0
14:58CHIJ. Dickinsonshorthanded(I. Mikheyev, L. Crevier)2–0

2ndshots 6–8no goals

3rdshots 9–12

09:59TORO. Ekman-Larsson(A. Matthews, W. Nylander)2–1
16:51TORA. Matthewspower play(W. Nylander)2–2
16:59TORD. Joshua(T. Stecher, J. McCabe)2–3

score reads CHI–TOR

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.49

TOR chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.011

TOR puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

54.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.87Expected goals2.49

TOR 57% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal27

2High-danger chances3

48All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: CHI 41% · TOR 59%

Faceoffs · TOR won67%off44%neu62%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI0 / 2 · 0.49 xG

TOR1 / 3 · 0.57 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI1 / 7 · 0.83 xG

TOR1 / 13 · 1.31 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI1 / 39 · 0.54 xG

TOR1 / 41 · 0.61 xG

CHI went 0-for-2 from high danger on 0.49 expected goals — 0.5 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

2 G · 1.87 xG · +0.1

TOR

3 G · 2.49 xG · +0.5

01234

CHI finished +0.1 against expected, TOR +0.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

WRIST2/20

TIP IN0/3

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/1

SNAP0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

POKE0/1

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

OTHER0/17

TOR

WRIST3/26

TIP IN0/9

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/3

SNAP0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

POKE0/0

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

OTHER0/15

CHI

TOR

Off the rush

2 G on 20

1.31 xG

0 G on 26

1.92 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.46 xG

0 G on 1

0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 2-for-20, TOR 3-for-26. CHI 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

S. Knight

CHI · 24/27 · .889

-0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.6-0.4

Medium1/131.3+0.3

Low1/410.6-0.4

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

J. Woll

TOR · 23/25 · .920

-0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium1/70.8-0.2

Low1/390.5-0.5

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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

31 shots

Final

73 shots

TOR

42 shots

CHI TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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. Matthews

#34 · C · TOR

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:30 on ice

W. Nylander

#88 · R · TOR

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:24 on ice

J. McCabe

#22 · D · TOR

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:18 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 16

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:32 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

Toronto enters this matchup with the model's clear favor. The projection gives the Maple Leafs a 55% win probability in what shapes as a 2.4–2.7 goal range—confidence Toronto wins, but not inevitability.

The underlying play supports this lean. At 5v5, the Maple Leafs command 46.0% expected goals against Chicago's 42.0%, a gap that reveals Toronto's sustained offensive pressure. Shot volume tells a subtler story: Corsi sits at 46.0% for the Blackhawks versus 45.0% for Toronto, a narrow margin that masks Toronto's quality advantage. PDO—a combination of save percentage and shooting percentage—reads 0.996 for Chicago and 1.002 for Toronto, indicating neither team is riding unsustainable luck.

Chicago's recent form worsens the picture. The Blackhawks are -14 in goal differential over their last 10 games, a deficit that compounds against an opponent generating superior offense.

Individual talent magnifies Toronto's edge. Auston Matthews generates 1.10 xG per 60 minutes with 17 goals and 13 assists, an elite creation rate that defines his play. John Tavares stabilizes Toronto's secondary scoring at 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals and 24 assists.

Chicago counters with Tyler Bertuzzi at 0.85 xG/60, 20 goals, and 15 assists—though his 7 high-danger goals suggest some goals came closer to the model's expectations than his rate would suggest—and Connor Bedard at 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals and 27 assists. Bedard's 11.8% shooting percentage leaves room for regression.

Defensively, the gap is real. Toronto's Bo Groulx represents a far softer target than Chicago's Anton Frondell. Matthews' elite shot generation will find that weakness repeatedly.

This is Toronto's game to win if they convert their underlying advantage into goals. The model's 55% lean reflects that edge precisely.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TOR 55%

55%

TOR

Model favorite

45%

55%

CHI50TOR

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

CHI← edge

edge →TOR

42.0%46.0%

46.0%45.0%

2.172.24

2.942.67

1.842.09

2.412.52

0.9961.002

TOR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 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

CHI

3-5-2

-14 GD · 2d rest

TOR

5-3-2

+5 GD · 2d rest

0.996

CHI 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 Maple Leafs own the underlying play — 46.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.

Things to watch

The Maple Leafs own the underlying play — 46.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
The Blackhawks are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CHI

Expected in goal

A. Soderblom

2 days rest.870 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR

Expected in goal

D. Hildeby

2 days rest.844 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

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A

0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh

Connor Bedard17G 27A

0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% 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