Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater

Breakdown · TOR at DET

Red Wings edge the Maple Leafs in overtime

Final / OTSun, Dec 28

TORToronto Maple Leafs2 DETDetroit Red Wings3

The verdict · earned

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

TOR 2 · DET 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:08 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 created five high-danger chances. Detroit created one. Toronto lost 3–2 in overtime.

Expected goals split 3.50–3.13 in Detroit's favor. Conversion efficiency decided the game. The Leafs underperformed their xG by 1.13, wasting the dangerous looks they created.

Detroit controlled possession. The Red Wings held 57% of shot attempts, outshooting Toronto 36–27. Simon Edvinsson finished at 01:46 of overtime with a backhander from the doorstep.

Goaltending proved decisive. Craig Talbot (25 saves, 0.926 SV%, +1.13 vs expected) exceeded his projection significantly. David Hildeby (33 saves, 0.917 SV%, +0.50 vs expected) also played above his xG baseline, but neither performance could overcome Toronto's offensive inefficiency.

Both teams wasted rebound chances. Detroit created five and converted zero. Toronto created three and converted zero. Secondary scoring never materialized.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Dec 28

TOR

DET

Red Wings edge the Maple Leafs in overtime

Chances 3.1 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

3.13

DET

3.50

47% of the chances53%

The board read TOR 2, DET 3. The chances read TOR 3.1, DET 3.5.

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

Luck check

DET

−0.5

goals above expected

DET3.50 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

TOR3.13 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

P2 04:25TORM. KniesPP1–0
P2 19:01DETM. Seider1–1
P3 04:53TORN. Robertson2–1
P3 05:16DETM. Appleton2–2
OT 01:46DETS. Edvinsson2–3

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

Where the shots came from

TOR

41 shots

Final

96 shots

DET

55 shots

TOR DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORDET

1 / 5

1.26 xG

High danger

0 / 1

0.20 xG

0 / 12

1.29 xG

Medium

2 / 23

2.55 xG

1 / 41

0.58 xG

Low

1 / 45

0.75 xG

High-danger looks: TOR 1 of 5, DET 0 of 1.

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

In the net

B+

C. Talbot

+1.1

DET · 25/27

D. Hildeby

+0.5

TOR · 33/36

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Red Wings 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 8–8no goals

2ndshots 9–13

04:25TORM. Kniespower play(A. Matthews, J. Tavares)1–0
19:01DETM. Seider(L. Raymond)1–1

3rdshots 9–12

04:53TORN. Robertson(J. Tavares)2–1
05:16DETM. Appleton(M. Rasmussen, A. Johansson)2–2

OTshots 1–3

01:46DETS. Edvinsson2–3

score reads TOR–DET

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.50

DET chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.5

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.009

DET 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

3.13Expected goals3.50

DET 53% of the chance quality

27Shots on goal36

5High-danger chances1

58All attempts (Corsi)69

Adjusted for score: TOR 45% · DET 55%

Faceoffs · DET won55%off59%neu48%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR1 / 5 · 1.26 xG

DET0 / 1 · 0.20 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR0 / 12 · 1.29 xG

DET2 / 23 · 2.55 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR1 / 41 · 0.58 xG

DET1 / 45 · 0.75 xG

TOR went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.29 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

2 G · 3.13 xG · -1.1

DET

3 G · 3.50 xG · -0.5

01234

TOR finished -1.1 against expected, DET -0.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST0/13

SNAP2/10

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/4

WRAP AROUND0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/17

DET

WRIST2/24

SNAP0/10

SLAP0/9

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND1/5

WRAP AROUND0/1

BAT0/0

OTHER0/14

TOR

DET

Off the rush

1 G on 26

2.26 xG

1 G on 31

2.35 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.38 xG

0 G on 5

0.47 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 0-for-13, DET 2-for-24.

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

D. Hildeby

TOR · 33/36 · .917

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.2+0.2

Medium2/232.5+0.6

Low1/450.8-0.3

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

C. Talbot

DET · 25/27 · .926

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.3+0.3

Medium0/121.3+1.3

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

96 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

41 shots

Final

96 shots

DET

55 shots

TOR DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

J. Tavares

#91 · C · TOR

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 17:47 on ice · +1

S. Edvinsson

#77 · D · DET

1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 25:57 on ice · +2

M. Seider

#53 · D · DET

1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 24:24 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Dec 28

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:07 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 DET game with the Red Wings holding 55% win probability — a meaningful edge rooted in sustained territorial control.

Detroit's 49.0% Corsi rating and 49.0% xG% speak to dominance in both shot volume and shot quality at even strength, outpacing Toronto's 45.0% Corsi and 46.0% xG%. Toronto's PDO of 1.002 suggests luck has run neutral, while Detroit's 0.985 indicates underlying performance that continues despite slight variance working against it.

Toronto's offense centers on Auston Matthews (1.10 xG/60, 17 goals, 13 assists, 10.6% shooting), who has generated just one high-danger goal—a concerning sign that volume, not efficiency, drives his scoring. John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15 goals, 24 assists, 3 high-danger goals, 12.4% shooting) has thrived at a rate suggesting efficiency beyond his shot quality.

Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat (0.88 xG/60, 17 goals, 28 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 9.0% shooting) leading the supporting cast. Marco Kasper (0.81 xG/60, 7 goals, 8 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 6.1% shooting) projects as a depth option unable to drive this matchup.

Toronto's offensive profile carries structural vulnerability: zero high-danger-goal rate and zero rebound-goal rate expose overreliance on primary chances, with Bo Groulx representing a defensive liability. Detroit faces similar constraints—zero high-danger and rebound production—with Axel Sandin-Pellikka as the weak link on defense.

The model's lean makes sense. Detroit's puck-possession edge accumulates into the kind of grinding pressure that converts even when both teams' scoring metrics suggest offensive scarcity.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DET 55%

55%

DET

Model favorite

45%

55%

TOR50DET

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

46.0%49.0%

45.0%49.0%

2.242.38

2.672.50

2.091.73

2.522.07

1.0020.985

DET holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.985) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

TOR

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

DET

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.985

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Red Wings drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Red Wings drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.

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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page