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

Maple Leafs shut out the Devils, 4-0

The verdict · coin flip

The Maple Leafs won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

NJD 0 · TOR 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:24 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 Maple Leafs bested New Jersey 4-0 in a game the underlying numbers said should have been much closer. Expected goals favored Toronto 3.97–3.75, nearly even, yet the Devils failed to score while the Leafs converted decisively.

The divergence came down to goaltending. J. Woll (TOR) posted a 1.000 save percentage, stopping 3.75 goals above expected—the entire margin of victory came through his crease. J. Markstrom (NJD) saved at 0.897 SV%, underperforming by 0.97 goals as the Leafs punished the chances he faced.

Toronto dominated through execution. On 27 rush attempts, the Leafs scored 3 goals—a conversion rate that defined the night. Matthew Knies's wrist shot from the high slot at 17:01 of the first period set the tone. The Leafs also won high-danger chances 6–4 and finished theirs while New Jersey underperformed expected goals by 3.8, wasting quality opportunities.

The Devils held a marginal edge in shot attempts (33 to 30), but Toronto's 48% of attempts masked their control. The Leafs dictated play where it mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 30
NJD
0
TOR
4

Maple Leafs shut out the Devils, 4-0

Chances 3.8 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Maple Leafs took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
NJD
3.75
TOR
3.97
49% of the chances51%

The board read NJD 0, TOR 4. The chances read NJD 3.8, TOR 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+0.0
goals above expected
TOR3.97 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD3.75 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Devils left 3.8 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 14:21TORB. McMannPP0–1
  2. P2 14:24TORN. Roy0–2
  3. P3 06:35TORC. Jarnkrok0–3
  4. P3 17:01TORM. KniesEN0–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NJD
48 shots
0
Final
90 shots
TOR
42 shots
4
NJD attackTOR attack
NJD TOR Goal
48
shots · 0 in
42
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NJDTOR
0 / 4
0.84 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.88 xG
0 / 18
2.14 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.47 xG
0 / 44
0.78 xG
Low
1 / 36
0.63 xG

The Devils went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Woll
+3.8
TOR · 33/33
B+
J. Markstrom
+1.0
NJD · 26/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs shut out the Devils, 4-0

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 9–14
  1. 14:21TORB. McMannpower play(N. Robertson)0–1
2ndshots 14–8
  1. 14:24TORN. Roy(B. McMann, N. Robertson)0–2
3rdshots 10–8
  1. 06:35TORC. Jarnkrok(S. Lorentz)0–3
  2. 17:01TORM. Kniesempty net(J. Tavares, N. Roy)0–4

score reads NJD–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.97
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.074
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.75Expected goals3.97
TOR 51% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal30
4High-danger chances6
66All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: NJD 59% · TOR 41%
Faceoffs · TOR won42%off59%neu69%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD0 / 4 · 0.84 xG
TOR1 / 6 · 1.88 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD0 / 18 · 2.14 xG
TOR2 / 12 · 1.47 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD0 / 44 · 0.78 xG
TOR1 / 36 · 0.63 xG

NJD went 0-for-18 from medium danger on 2.14 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
0 G · 3.75 xG · -3.8
TOR
4 G · 3.97 xG · +0.0
012345

NJD finished -3.8 against expected, TOR +0.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
WRIST0/28
TIP IN0/7
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/18
TOR
WRIST3/33
TIP IN1/1
SNAP0/3
BACKHAND0/2
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/12
NJD
TOR
Off the rush
0 G on 30
2.87 xG
3 G on 27
2.71 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.36 xG
0 G on 3
0.44 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 0-for-28, TOR 3-for-33. TOR scored 3 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. Markstrom
NJD · 26/29 · .897
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.9+0.9
Medium2/121.5-0.5
Low1/360.6-0.4

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 · 33/33 · 1.000
+3.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.8+0.8
Medium0/182.1+2.1
Low0/440.8+0.8

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NJD
48 shots
0
Final
90 shots
TOR
42 shots
4
NJD attackTOR attack
NJD TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD 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
N. Roy
#55 · C · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:04 on ice · +2
N. Robertson
#89 · L · TOR
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 14:22 on ice · +1
B. McMann
#74 · C · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 14:16 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 30
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:22 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

This is an even matchup disguised as one. The model projects a 2.6–2.5 Devils win with New Jersey at 51% probability, which is as close to a pick'em as sports betting produces.

The surface argument favors neither team. Both are bleeding goals over their last 10 games—Toronto at minus-7, New Jersey at minus-6—a sign that depth scoring has dried up for both clubs just when they need it most.

But the underlying play tells a sharper story. New Jersey owns the territorial advantage by a meaningful margin: 50.0% expected goals share and 51.0% Corsi at 5v5. That's not a razor's edge. It means the Devils are consistently generating more dangerous chances and controlling the game's physical shape. Toronto is being out-worked.

Where Toronto sits is in the goaltending. D. Hildeby faces a back-to-back scenario that could tilt the crease toward a tired starter or a backup who hasn't played in weeks. That's the most concrete edge New Jersey can exploit.

The Devils' PDO registers 0.971—a cold streak baked into the record. Regression is owed. Jack Hughes has already produced 18 goals on an 11.5% shooting rate, evidence that he's both creating and finishing at a level that's not fluky. Timo Meier's 1.08 xG per 60 minutes is elite, though his 6.7% shooting rate suggests more volume will convert.

Toronto's problem runs deeper. Auston Matthews leads with 1.10 xG per 60 and 17 goals, but that output isn't translating into the kind of game-shifting volume the Leafs need. John Tavares is doing the secondary work—0.91 xG per 60, 15 goals, 24 assists—but his 12.4% shooting rate is inflated. When regression hits, it hits him hard.

Neither team is generating secondary scoring through pure chance. Both sit at 0% for high-danger and rebound goals over the sample, a structural limitation that means they're relying on their top-tier producers. New Jersey's defensive structure holds as long as Johnathan Kovacevic doesn't become a sieve. Toronto's does the same with Bo Groulx in the lineup.

The model is right to call this a toss-up. New Jersey has the process edge—better underlying play, better shot location, better volume. Toronto has the flip-coin edge—the kind of unpredictable leverage that exists in small samples and goaltending roulettes. Both teams will have moments. The winner will be the one who tightens possession when it matters.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NJD 51%
51%
NJD
Model favorite
51%
49%
NJD50TOR

NJD by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NJD 2.6–2.5 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
NJD← edge
edge →TOR
50.0%46.0%
51.0%45.0%
2.452.24
2.502.67
1.662.09
2.232.52
0.9711.002

NJD holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 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
NJD
4-5-1
-6 GD · 2d rest
TOR
4-4-2
-7 GD · 1d rest
0.971
NJD 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 Devils own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Devils own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • D. Hildeby is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Devils are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NJD
Expected in goal
J. Allen
2 days rest.879 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR
Expected in goal
D. Hildeby
back-to-back.917 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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% 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