Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
← Tue, Dec 30 · the slate
Breakdown · MTL at FLA

Canadiens edge the Panthers in overtime

Final / OTTue, Dec 30
MTLMontreal Canadiens3FLAFlorida Panthers2
The verdict · coin flip

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

MTL 3 · FLA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:25 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

Florida held 51% of shot attempts and still lost. Montreal won 3–2 in OT not because of superior possession or even better chances—expected goals ran 4.14–4.39, nearly even—but because the Panthers couldn't convert high-quality opportunities while S. Montembeault was immaculate.

Florida went 0 for 6 on high-danger chances. Montreal scored three on ten. S. Montembeault stopped 2.1 goals above expected and posted 100% on high-danger shots. The Panthers underperformed their xG by 2.14 goals, twice as much as Montreal's 1.39.

Nick Suzuki ended it at 3:24 of overtime, finishing a game where Montreal's transition game was lethal: three goals on 33 rush attempts. Neither team capitalized on rebound chances (six created, zero converted each). The open nature of the game—16 high-danger chances combined—masked a stark shooting reality: Florida's two goals came from low-danger areas, the kind a goalie has to have. Montreal's quality chances found the net.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Dec 30
MTL
3
FLA
2

Canadiens edge the Panthers in overtime

Chances 4.4 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Canadiens took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
4.39
FLA
4.14
52% of the chances49%

The board read MTL 3, FLA 2. The chances read MTL 4.4, FLA 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
−1.4
goals above expected
MTL4.39 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA4.14 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 2.1 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. P3 10:18FLAB. MarchandPP0–1
  2. P3 15:01FLAS. Reinhart0–2
  3. P3 15:33MTLC. Caufield1–2
  4. P3 18:38MTLN. SuzukiPP2–2
  5. OT 03:24MTLN. SuzukiPP3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
47 shots
3
Final
86 shots
FLA
39 shots
2
MTL attackFLA attack
MTL FLA Goal
47
shots · 3 in
39
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLFLA
2 / 10
2.47 xG
High danger
0 / 6
2.00 xG
0 / 11
1.26 xG
Medium
0 / 13
1.58 xG
1 / 41
0.66 xG
Low
2 / 39
0.56 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Montembeault
+2.1
MTL · 28/30
B+
D. Tarasov
+1.4
FLA · 26/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens edge the Panthers 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 7–9no goals
    2ndshots 10–8no goals
      3rdshots 10–11
      1. 10:18FLAB. Marchandpower play(S. Bennett, S. Jones)0–1
      2. 15:01FLAS. Reinhart(E. Luostarinen, A. Lundell)0–2
      3. 15:33MTLC. Caufield(L. Hutson, N. Dobson)1–2
      4. 18:38MTLN. Suzukipower play(I. Demidov, C. Caufield)2–2
      OTshots 2–2
      1. 03:24MTLN. Suzukipower play(L. Hutson, N. Dobson)3–2

      score reads MTL–FLA

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      4.39
      MTL chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −1.4
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.014
      MTL puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      51.7%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      4.39Expected goals4.14
      MTL 52% of the chance quality
      29Shots on goal30
      10High-danger chances6
      62All attempts (Corsi)58
      Adjusted for score: MTL 52% · FLA 48%
      Faceoffs · FLA won53%off40%neu41%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      MTL2 / 10 · 2.47 xG
      FLA0 / 6 · 2.00 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      MTL0 / 11 · 1.26 xG
      FLA0 / 13 · 1.58 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      MTL1 / 41 · 0.66 xG
      FLA2 / 39 · 0.56 xG

      FLA went 0-for-6 from high danger on 2.00 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      MTL
      3 G · 4.39 xG · -1.4
      FLA
      2 G · 4.14 xG · -2.1
      012345

      MTL finished -1.4 against expected, FLA -2.1.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      MTL
      WRIST2/26
      SNAP0/6
      SLAP1/8
      BACKHAND0/3
      TIP IN0/1
      POKE0/2
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      DEFLECTED0/0
      OTHER0/15
      FLA
      WRIST1/9
      SNAP1/18
      SLAP0/4
      BACKHAND0/3
      TIP IN0/3
      POKE0/0
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      DEFLECTED0/1
      OTHER0/19
      MTL
      FLA
      Off the rush
      3 G on 33
      3.56 xG
      1 G on 20
      2.32 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 3
      0.45 xG
      0 G on 6
      0.86 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 2-for-26, FLA 1-for-9. MTL 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
      S. Montembeault
      MTL · 28/30 · .933
      +2.1
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/62.0+2.0
      Medium0/131.6+1.6
      Low2/390.6-1.4

      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

      D. Tarasov
      FLA · 26/29 · .897
      +1.4
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger2/102.5+0.5
      Medium0/111.3+1.3
      Low1/410.7-0.3

      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

      86 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      MTL
      47 shots
      3
      Final
      86 shots
      FLA
      39 shots
      2
      MTL attackFLA attack
      MTL FLA Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, FLA 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. Dobson
      #53 · D · MTL
      0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 24:32 on ice · +2
      N. Suzuki
      #14 · C · MTL
      2 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 22:33 on ice · +1
      L. Hutson
      #48 · D · MTL
      0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:29 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, 10:23 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 models see this as a genuine coin flip: a projected 2.5–2.7 game with Florida at 53% to win. The teams are separated by marginal edges in the places that matter most.

      Florida's one structural advantage sits in possession. The Panthers drive 52.0% Corsi at 5v5 versus Montreal's 49.0%, meaning territorial control tilts toward the visiting team. That possession advantage hasn't yet materialized into expected goals—Florida sits at 49.0% xG% to Montreal's 48.0%—but teams that own the puck eventually own the scoreboard.

      The Canadiens' principal vulnerability is sustainability. Montreal runs a 1.018 PDO, overperforming the shooting rates their chances should generate. Florida, by contrast, sits at 0.989, underperforming. Regression cuts both ways—if Montreal regresses down and Florida regresses up, the margin widens.

      The rosters explain why this stays close despite Florida's structural edge. Cole Caufield carries 33 goals and 0.97 xG per 60 for Montreal, but his 20.0% shooting rate is unsustainable. Oliver Kapanen (19 goals, 0.83 xG/60) provides secondary production, though his 17.8% shooting rate is equally inflated.

      Florida counters with Sam Bennett at 0.97 xG/60—matching Caufield's chance creation—while scoring at a more realistic 13.1% clip. His 18 goals include 6 high-danger conversions, suggesting more consistent finish than Montreal's top scorer. Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 17 goals, 19.5% shooting) hints at upside; he's been beaten by variance rather than riding it.

      The structural difference cuts deeper when you examine shot quality. Caufield's 1 high-danger goal against 33 total signals most damage arrives from range rather than close. Kapanen's 4 high-danger goals in 19 shows more inside presence. Bennett's 6 in 18 tilts decisively toward high-probability chances—Florida is, genuinely, more dangerous when it shoots.

      What this truly hangs on: Does Florida's possession advantage compound, or does Montreal's elite efficiency on a small sample prove durable? The model, refusing to pick a side at 53%, is saying both outcomes are equally probable.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      FLA 53%
      53%
      FLA
      Model favorite
      47%
      53%
      MTL50FLA

      FLA by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 2.5–2.7 FLA; 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
      MTL← edge
      edge →FLA
      48.0%49.0%
      49.0%52.0%
      2.412.48
      2.622.56
      2.241.98
      1.962.21
      1.0180.989

      FLA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 0.989) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      MTL
      5-2-3
      +5 GD · 2d rest
      FLA
      7-3-0
      +6 GD · 2d rest
      1.018
      MTL PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.989
      FLA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      MTL
      Expected in goal
      J. Fowler
      2 days rest.810 last start
      Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      FLA
      Expected in goal
      S. Bobrovsky
      2 days rest.875 last start
      Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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
      MTL
      Cole Caufield33G 16A
      0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
      Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
      0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
      FLA
      Sam Bennett18G 19A
      0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
      Brad Marchand17G 9A
      0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page