Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
Breakdown · PIT at TOR

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

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 3 · TOR 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:35 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 Leafs turned nearly even shot attempts into a 6–3 win through sheer shot quality. Toronto generated 0.108 expected goals per attempt while Pittsburgh managed 0.044—a gap that explains how the Leafs controlled play without dominating shot volume (31–32).

That quality gulf translated to overwhelming expected goals. Toronto held 70% of 5v5 xG (5.92–2.48) and crushed Pittsburgh on high-danger chances (11–2). S. Skinner made 25 saves on 29 shots and stopped 1.9 goals above expected, a night that softened the margin. J. Woll finished 29/32 (0.906 SV%), playing 0.52 goals below expected.

Pittsburgh scored twice from low-danger areas—goals that inflate the total while masking the underlying gap. On the rush, Toronto was lethal: five goals on 29 chances. Pittsburgh converted two of 24 rush attempts, identical efficiency on a smaller sample. William Nylander's wrist shot from the slot (18:36, third period) epitomized the evening—a high-percentage chance cleanly finished.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 23
PIT
3
TOR
6

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

Chances 2.5 – 5.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
2.48
TOR
5.92
30% of the chances70%

The board read PIT 3, TOR 6. The chances read PIT 2.5, TOR 5.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+0.1
goals above expected
TOR5.92 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT2.48 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
  1. P1 09:07TORW. Nylander0–1
  2. P1 09:51PITB. Rust1–1
  3. P1 13:34TORM. Maccelli1–2
  4. P2 07:38TORS. Lorentz1–3
  5. P2 11:43PITR. McGroarty2–3
  6. P3 01:00PITA. Mantha3–3
  7. P3 11:35TORM. Domi3–4
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
40 shots
3
Final
86 shots
TOR
46 shots
6
PIT attackTOR attack
PIT TOR Goal
40
shots · 3 in
46
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITTOR
0 / 2
0.37 xG
High danger
4 / 11
4.00 xG
1 / 13
1.49 xG
Medium
1 / 9
1.24 xG
2 / 42
0.63 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.68 xG

The Maple Leafs buried 4 of 11 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Skinner
+1.9
PIT · 25/29
D
J. Woll
−0.5
TOR · 29/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs run the Penguins 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 12–7
  1. 09:07TORW. Nylander0–1
  2. 09:51PITB. Rust(S. Crosby, K. Letang)1–1
  3. 13:34TORM. Maccelli(W. Nylander, P. Myers)1–2
2ndshots 9–12
  1. 07:38TORS. Lorentz1–3
  2. 11:43PITR. McGroarty2–3
3rdshots 11–12
  1. 01:00PITA. Mantha(P. Wotherspoon, J. Brazeau)3–3
  2. 11:35TORM. Domi(O. Ekman-Larsson, W. Nylander)3–4
  3. 17:57TORB. McMannempty net(M. Domi)3–5
  4. 18:36TORW. Nylanderempty net(J. Tavares, M. Knies)3–6

score reads PIT–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.92
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.056
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
49.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.48Expected goals5.92
TOR 70% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal31
2High-danger chances11
57All attempts (Corsi)55
Adjusted for score: PIT 54% · TOR 46%
Faceoffs · TOR won54%off71%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT0 / 2 · 0.37 xG
TOR4 / 11 · 4.00 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT1 / 13 · 1.49 xG
TOR1 / 9 · 1.24 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT2 / 42 · 0.63 xG
TOR1 / 35 · 0.68 xG

PIT went 2-for-42 from low danger on 0.63 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
3 G · 2.48 xG · +0.5
TOR
6 G · 5.92 xG · +0.1
01234567

PIT finished +0.5 against expected, TOR +0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST2/27
SLAP1/4
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/2
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/17
TOR
WRIST4/30
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND2/4
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
PIT
TOR
Off the rush
2 G on 24
1.89 xG
5 G on 29
4.57 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.27 xG
1 G on 4
1.13 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 2-for-27, TOR 4-for-30. 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
S. Skinner
PIT · 25/29 · .862
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/114.0+0.0
Medium1/91.2+0.2
Low1/350.7-0.3

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 · 29/32 · .906
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium1/131.5+0.5
Low2/420.6-1.4

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
PIT
40 shots
3
Final
86 shots
TOR
46 shots
6
PIT attackTOR attack
PIT TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT 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
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
2 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:21 on ice · +2
M. Domi
#11 · C · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:56 on ice · +1
P. Wotherspoon
#28 · D · PIT
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:04 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 23
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:45 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 PIT 2.7 - 2.5 TOR game with the Penguins at 52% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as the numbers get.

Pittsburgh owns the underlying play at 5v5. The Penguins' expected goals percentage sits at 51.0% to Toronto's 46.0%, and they drive possession at a 50.0% Corsi rate—expect territorial dominance. Recent form complicates matters, though. Toronto sits at -5 goal differential over their last 10; Pittsburgh is -14.

Both starting goaltenders face back-to-back situations. Monitor whether D. Hildeby or A. Silovs starts, or if either appears in consecutive games.

The matchups show stark differences in secondary scoring. Rickard Rakell anchors Pittsburgh's offense at 1.01 xG per 60 minutes, with 13 goals and 13 assists; 3 of those goals came from high-danger areas on a 12.1% shooting rate. Filip Hallander, who generated 1.28 xG per 60, remains sidelined and unavailable for this matchup.

Toronto's attack runs through dual threats. Auston Matthews operates at 1.10 xG per 60 with 17 goals and 13 assists, though only 1 high-danger goal despite his 10.6% shooting rate—a compressed conversion window. John Tavares adds 0.91 xG per 60, 15 goals, 24 assists, and 3 high-danger goals at 12.4% shooting. When Tavares' efficiency holds, his secondary offensive load becomes devastating.

The defensive infrastructure diverges too. Pittsburgh's Caleb Jones marks a structural vulnerability. Toronto's Bo Groulx carries equivalent liability. Whichever team better exploits its opponent's weak link—or keeps its stars from wasting energy defending—tilts a fundamentally even game.

The underlying data favors Pittsburgh. But 52% win probability reflects what it is: equilibrium with marginal edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 53%
53%
PIT
Model favorite
53%
47%
PIT50TOR

PIT by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.7–2.5 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
PIT← edge
edge →TOR
51.0%46.0%
50.0%45.0%
2.662.24
2.552.67
2.452.09
2.122.52
1.0121.002

PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.002) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
PIT
2-4-4
-14 GD · 1d rest
TOR
4-4-2
-5 GD · 1d rest
1.012
PIT 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 Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Penguins drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Penguins own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Penguins 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.
  • A. Silovs is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Penguins are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PIT
Expected in goal
A. Silovs
back-to-back.880 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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.810 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
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% 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