Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
← Sat, Dec 27 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at TOR

Maple Leafs hold off the Senators

FinalSat, Dec 27
OTTOttawa Senators5TORToronto Maple Leafs7
The verdict · earned

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

OTT 5 · TOR 7
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:53 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 7–5 victory conceals a much tighter game underneath — the Maple Leafs outperformed their expected goals by 1.62 runs, translating close underlying metrics into a decisive win.

The expected-goals split (5.38–4.48, favoring Toronto 55–45) suggested a near-even contest. The scoreboard told a different story. Toronto's 52% shot-attempt share and high-danger conversion rate (4 of 9, or 44%) reveal clinical finishing in tight spots. Ottawa matched Toronto's dangerous chance generation (10 to 9) but finished at only 40% (4 of 10), while generating far fewer high-danger opportunities per shot (0.071 xG/shot vs. Toronto's 0.110).

Goaltending diverged sharply. L. Meriläinen stopped 1.02 goals above expected, keeping Ottawa alive. L. Ullmark conceded 1.65 goals above expected on just 14 shots — a catastrophic workload efficiency. Toronto's J. Woll conceded 0.52 goals above expected but faced fewer dangerous looks overall.

The turning point came from John Tavares's wrist shot from the wing in the third period (18:44), a sequence that epitomized Toronto's higher-percentage play.

Toronto's rush game was the separating factor: 4 goals on 20 attempts represents elite conversion. Ottawa's 4 goals on 33 rush chances feels pedestrian by comparison, suggesting Toronto's off-the-puck positioning and timing edges were real, even when shot totals looked balanced.

Three Stars

  • #34 A. Matthews (TOR) — 1G, 2A in 19:08
  • #11 M. Domi (TOR) — 3A in 17:21
  • #23 M. Knies (TOR) — 2G, 1A in 16:38
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 27
OTT
5
TOR
7

Maple Leafs hold off the Senators

Chances 4.5 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
4.48
TOR
5.38
45% of the chances55%

The board read OTT 5, TOR 7. The chances read OTT 4.5, TOR 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+1.6
goals above expected
TOR5.38 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT4.48 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

The Maple Leafs scored 1.6 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:40TORW. NylanderPP0–1
  2. P1 14:42TORM. KniesPP0–2
  3. P1 17:50OTTN. Cousins1–2
  4. P2 00:18OTTR. Greig2–2
  5. P2 03:28TORB. McMann2–3
  6. P2 07:28TORA. Matthews2–4
  7. P2 08:32TORN. Robertson2–5
+5 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
54 shots
5
Final
96 shots
TOR
42 shots
7
OTT attackTOR attack
OTT TOR Goal
54
shots · 5 in
42
shots · 7 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTTOR
4 / 10
2.37 xG
High danger
4 / 9
3.31 xG
1 / 13
1.41 xG
Medium
3 / 13
1.62 xG
0 / 40
0.70 xG
Low
0 / 27
0.44 xG

The Maple Leafs buried 4 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
L. Meriläinen
+3.4
OTT · 16/18
B+
L. Ullmark
+1.4
OTT · 10/14
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs hold off the Senators

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 9–4
  1. 00:40TORW. Nylanderpower play(A. Matthews, M. Maccelli)0–1
  2. 14:42TORM. Kniespower play(M. Domi, N. Robertson)0–2
  3. 17:50OTTN. Cousins(J. Spence, S. Halliday)1–2
2ndshots 9–20
  1. 00:18OTTR. Greig(C. Giroux)2–2
  2. 03:28TORB. McMann(A. Matthews, M. Domi)2–3
  3. 07:28TORA. Matthews(M. Domi, J. McCabe)2–4
  4. 08:32TORN. Robertson(M. Knies, N. Roy)2–5
3rdshots 13–9
  1. 00:14OTTD. Batherson(D. Cozens, B. Tkachuk)3–5
  2. 05:07OTTT. Stützle(F. Zetterlund)4–5
  3. 05:53TORM. Knies(M. Maccelli, M. Rielly)4–6
  4. 09:18OTTJ. Spence(C. Giroux, S. Halliday)5–6
  5. 18:44TORJ. Tavaresempty net5–7

score reads OTT–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.38
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.063
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

4.48Expected goals5.38
TOR 55% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal33
10High-danger chances9
63All attempts (Corsi)49
Adjusted for score: OTT 61% · TOR 39%
Faceoffs · TOR won29%off60%neu31%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT4 / 10 · 2.37 xG
TOR4 / 9 · 3.31 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT1 / 13 · 1.41 xG
TOR3 / 13 · 1.62 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT0 / 40 · 0.70 xG
TOR0 / 27 · 0.44 xG

OTT went 4-for-10 from high danger on 2.37 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
5 G · 4.48 xG · +0.5
TOR
7 G · 5.38 xG · +1.6
012345678

OTT finished +0.5 against expected, TOR +1.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
WRIST5/40
BACKHAND0/5
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/1
CRADLE0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/9
TOR
WRIST4/29
BACKHAND2/5
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/1
SNAP1/3
CRADLE0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/7
OTT
TOR
Off the rush
4 G on 33
3.51 xG
4 G on 20
1.88 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.35 xG
2 G on 5
0.78 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 5-for-40, TOR 4-for-29. OTT 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
L. Meriläinen
OTT · 16/18 · .889
+3.4
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/93.3-0.7
Medium3/131.6-1.4
Low0/270.4+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

L. Ullmark
OTT · 10/14 · .714
+1.4
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/93.3-0.7
Medium3/131.6-1.4
Low0/270.4+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 · 26/31 · .839
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/102.4-1.6
Medium1/131.4+0.4
Low0/400.7+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

96 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
54 shots
5
Final
96 shots
TOR
42 shots
7
OTT attackTOR attack
OTT TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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 · 2 A · 9 SOG · 19:08 on ice · +2
M. Domi
#11 · C · TOR
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 17:21 on ice
M. Knies
#23 · L · TOR
2 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 16:38 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 27
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:52 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 Ottawa winning 2.7 to 2.3, with the Senators favored at 57% win probability. The edge lies in fundamental play — the Senators dominate the underlying shot metrics while Toronto lags on the back of recent underperformance.

Ottawa owns the possession battle at 5v5 this season. The Senators generate 56.0% expected goals and control Corsi at 53.0%, meaning they dictate territorial flow. Toronto, by contrast, sit at 46.0% xG and 45.0% Corsi, a significant disadvantage in puck management.

That gap is not masked by luck. Ottawa's PDO of 0.993 indicates they're slightly underperforming their underlying rate, while Toronto's 1.002 suggests neutral efficiency. If anything, the Senators could be even further ahead if bounces regressed toward their baseline.

Recent form compounds the problem for Toronto. The Maple Leafs are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10 games, indicating the underlying issues are translating to actual results. Against an opponent that controls play and generates high-quality chances, that's a tough spot.

At the individual level, both teams have capable scorers, though Ottawa's engine is running hotter. Brady Tkachuk leads the Senators at 1.19 xG per 60 minutes, backed by 11 goals and 20 assists with a 7.5% shooting rate. Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60) provides secondary firepower with 13 goals and 15 assists at 9.5% shooting. Auston Matthews (1.10 xG/60) is Toronto's primary threat with 17 goals and 13 assists, while John Tavares (0.91 xG/60) adds 15 goals and 24 assists at 12.4% shooting.

Both teams reveal vulnerabilities at even strength. Ottawa carries a 0% rate on hard-chance and rebound goals, a notable drought in high-danger conversions, with Nick Jensen identified as a defensive weak link. Toronto mirrors that pattern at 0% on hard chances and rebounds, with Bo Groulx representing defensive liability. The team that can generate and convert one or two of these higher-percentage opportunities holds a significant edge in a game where baseline shot quality already tilts toward Ottawa.

The model's lean is justified. Underlying dominance plus recent Toronto regression point toward a Senators victory.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 57%
57%
OTT
Model favorite
57%
43%
OTT50TOR

OTT by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.7–2.3 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
OTT← edge
edge →TOR
56.0%46.0%
53.0%45.0%
2.662.24
2.122.67
2.182.09
1.992.52
0.9931.002

OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 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
OTT
5-4-1
+8 GD · 3d rest
TOR
4-4-2
-5 GD · 4d rest
0.993
OTT 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 Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
3 days rest.880 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR
Expected in goal
J. Woll
4 days rest.906 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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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