Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater

Breakdown · TOR at NSH

Predators run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Dec 20

TORToronto Maple Leafs3 NSHNashville Predators5

The verdict · earned

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

TOR 3 · NSH 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:18 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

Nashville's dominance should have produced a blowout, but J. Woll kept Toronto from getting buried. The Predators controlled 63% of expected goals (5.68–3.33) and 61% of shot attempts, but Woll's 0.906 save percentage — +2.68 above expected — compressed what looked like a rout into a 5-3 final.

The numbers tell the story: Nashville outshot Toronto 34–22 at even strength and won the high-danger scoring race 11–3. S. Stamkos scored once and assisted once in 16:49; B. Skjei recorded two assists in 20:43. Toronto's N. Robertson answered with two assists in 12:36.

One sequence defined the game. Cole Smith's snap shot from the wing at 19:51 of the third period shifted momentum.

Nashville converted 4 of 31 rush chances into goals; Toronto scored 3 on 26 rush opportunities. J. Woll stopped 29 of 32 shots; J. Saros saved 19 of 22 (0.864 SV%).

The Predators built a dominant advantage in both volume and quality, yet Toronto's elite goaltending kept the margin from exploding. Woll made the difference between a decisive win and a blowout.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 20

TOR

NSH

Predators run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.3 – 5.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Predators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

3.33

NSH

5.68

37% of the chances63%

The board read TOR 3, NSH 5. The chances read TOR 3.3, NSH 5.7.

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

Luck check

NSH

−0.7

goals above expected

NSH5.68 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

TOR3.33 expected · 3 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 01:32TORN. Roy1–0
P2 04:56NSHE. HaulaPP1–1
P2 11:57TORJ. Tavares2–1
P2 19:26NSHA. Wilsby2–2
P3 09:18NSHL. Evangelista2–3
P3 18:25NSHS. StamkosEN2–4
P3 19:06TORB. McMannPP3–4

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

TOR

34 shots

Final

81 shots

NSH

47 shots

TOR NSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORNSH

0 / 3

0.94 xG

High danger

3 / 11

3.72 xG

2 / 18

2.03 xG

Medium

1 / 13

1.39 xG

1 / 26

0.36 xG

Low

1 / 49

0.57 xG

The Maple Leafs went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

J. Woll

+2.7

TOR · 29/32

J. Saros

+0.3

NSH · 19/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Predators run the Maple Leafs 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 7–10

01:32TORN. Roy(B. McMann, N. Robertson)1–0

2ndshots 7–14

04:56NSHE. Haulapower play(R. Josi, S. Stamkos)1–1
11:57TORJ. Tavares(M. Maccelli, J. McCabe)2–1
19:26NSHA. Wilsby(R. O'Reilly)2–2

3rdshots 8–10

09:18NSHL. Evangelista(B. Skjei)2–3
18:25NSHS. Stamkosempty net(F. Forsberg)2–4
19:06TORB. McMannpower play(N. Robertson, E. Cowan)3–4
19:51NSHC. Smithempty net(B. Skjei, M. McCarron)3–5

score reads TOR–NSH

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.68

NSH chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.7

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.005

NSH puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

60.8%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.33Expected goals5.68

NSH 63% of the chance quality

22Shots on goal34

3High-danger chances11

47All attempts (Corsi)73

Adjusted for score: TOR 38% · NSH 62%

Faceoffs · NSH won57%off21%neu35%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR0 / 3 · 0.94 xG

NSH3 / 11 · 3.72 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR2 / 18 · 2.03 xG

NSH1 / 13 · 1.39 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR1 / 26 · 0.36 xG

NSH1 / 49 · 0.57 xG

TOR went 0-for-3 from high danger on 0.94 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

3 G · 3.33 xG · -0.3

NSH

5 G · 5.68 xG · -0.7

0123456

TOR finished -0.3 against expected, NSH -0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST1/21

TIP IN1/6

SNAP0/4

BACKHAND0/1

SLAP0/0

DEFLECTED1/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/13

NSH

WRIST2/24

TIP IN1/6

SNAP1/6

BACKHAND1/5

SLAP0/6

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/26

TOR

NSH

Off the rush

3 G on 26

2.09 xG

4 G on 31

4.08 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.93 xG

0 G on 3

0.46 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 1-for-21, NSH 2-for-24. NSH 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

J. Woll

TOR · 29/32 · .906

+2.7

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/113.7+0.7

Medium1/131.4+0.4

Low1/490.6-0.4

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. Saros

NSH · 19/22 · .864

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.9+0.9

Medium2/182.0+0.0

Low1/260.4-0.6

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

34 shots

Final

81 shots

NSH

47 shots

TOR NSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

B. Skjei

#76 · D · NSH

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:43 on ice · +2

S. Stamkos

#91 · C · NSH

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 16:49 on ice · -1

N. Robertson

#89 · L · TOR

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 12:36 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 20

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:17 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 2.4-2.7 Nashville victory with the Predators at 55% win probability. That edge flows directly from how each team controls play.

Nashville dominates the underlying numbers. The Predators post 50.0% Corsi and 49.0% expected goals, creating sustained territorial advantage. Toronto trails on both counts (45.0% Corsi, 46.0% xG%), though the Maple Leafs benefit from a PDO of 1.002—essentially running above expectation. Nashville's 0.992 PDO suggests the opposite: cold luck masking sound process. Over a full game, process compounds.

Filip Forsberg (23G, 0.80 xG/60, 13.6% shooting) leads Nashville's attack, while Auston Matthews (17G, 1.10 xG/60, 10.6% shooting) anchors Toronto's. Matthews operates at higher shot quality per minute, but Forsberg's goal total and shooting rate signal a player in rhythm. John Tavares (15G, 24A, 0.91 xG/60, 12.4% shooting) provides Toronto's secondary edge—his assist total distinguishes him from pure finishers. Zachary L'Heureux (4G, 0.85 xG/60, 16.0% shooting) remains a small-sample efficiency signal for Nashville: goals lag opportunity, but the shooting percentage speaks to skill.

Neither team scores from high-danger areas (both 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate), meaning most goals arrive from moderate-distance chances or transition. That structural reality amplifies Nashville's territorial edge: more shots from more favorable locations convert.

Toronto's defensive weak link is Bo Groulx; Jonathan Marchessault serves the same role for Nashville. Turnovers and gap control near these players determine leverage.

One variable: D. Hildeby on a back-to-back. A backup start or tired starter tips the game further toward Nashville's volume.

The Predators' edge is structural, not speculative. At 55% win probability, the model is reading process, not past results.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NSH 55%

55%

NSH

Model favorite

45%

55%

TOR50NSH

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

TOR← edge

edge →NSH

46.0%49.0%

45.0%50.0%

2.242.48

2.672.58

2.091.84

2.522.21

1.0020.992

NSH holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.992) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TOR

5-3-2

+4 GD · 1d rest

NSH

6-4-0

+4 GD · 2d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.992

NSH PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Predators drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Predators drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
D. Hildeby is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TOR

Expected in goal

D. Hildeby

back-to-back.862 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.

NSH

Expected in goal

J. Saros

2 days rest.917 last start

Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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

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

NSH

Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A

0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh

Filip Forsberg23G 17A

0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page