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

Maple Leafs pull away from the Panthers

The verdict · earned

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

FLA 1 · TOR 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:37 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 generated 3.40 expected goals and scored one. Toronto generated 4.34 and scored four. The 2.40-goal gap between expected and actual for the Panthers makes the 4-1 scoreline look like a rout—it wasn't just dominant play, it was a collapse in finishing.

The Maple Leafs dominated the underlying metrics. They held 56% of 5-on-5 expected goals (4.34–3.40) while taking 42% of shot attempts (23–32). High-danger chances favored Toronto 7–5, a margin that reflects sustained zone pressure rather than randomness.

Toronto was lethal on the rush, converting four goals on 27 rush attempts. Florida created six rebound opportunities but converted zero, an aggressive net-front game that yielded nothing. The Panthers had higher-quality looks than their shot total suggested—they just couldn't finish them.

The goaltending split reveals how mismatched the game truly was. J. Woll (TOR) stopped 31 of 32 (0.969 SV%), saving 2.40 goals above expected and stealing the show. S. Bobrovsky (FLA) kept his team alive by saving 1.34 above expected (19 of 22, 0.864 SV%), but that wasn't enough to overcome Florida's offensive inconsistency.

Bobby McMann's backhander from the high slot at 19:52 of the third period served as the turning point. Toronto's depth scoring was clean—the Maple Leafs didn't need star-caliber performances to overwhelm a Panthers team that couldn't capitalize on its chances.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 6
FLA
1
TOR
4

Maple Leafs pull away from the Panthers

Chances 3.4 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
3.40
TOR
4.34
44% of the chances56%

The board read FLA 1, TOR 4. The chances read FLA 3.4, TOR 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
−0.3
goals above expected
TOR4.34 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA3.40 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 2.4 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 19:36TORE. Cowan0–1
  2. P2 00:42TORM. Knies0–2
  3. P2 04:01TORA. Matthews0–3
  4. P3 11:38FLAC. Verhaeghe1–3
  5. P3 19:52TORB. McMannEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
56 shots
1
Final
93 shots
TOR
37 shots
4
FLA attackTOR attack
FLA TOR Goal
56
shots · 1 in
37
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLATOR
1 / 5
1.06 xG
High danger
1 / 7
2.70 xG
0 / 13
1.48 xG
Medium
3 / 13
1.24 xG
0 / 57
0.86 xG
Low
0 / 28
0.40 xG

High-danger looks: FLA 1 of 5, TOR 1 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Woll
+2.4
TOR · 31/32
B+
S. Bobrovsky
+1.3
FLA · 19/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs pull away from the Panthers

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 4–8
  1. 19:36TORE. Cowan(N. Robertson, N. Roy)0–1
2ndshots 9–9
  1. 00:42TORM. Knies(T. Stecher, J. Tavares)0–2
  2. 04:01TORA. Matthews(M. Knies, M. Maccelli)0–3
3rdshots 19–6
  1. 11:38FLAC. Verhaeghe1–3
  2. 19:52TORB. McMannempty net(N. Roy)1–4

score reads FLA–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.34
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.070
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
39.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.40Expected goals4.34
TOR 56% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal23
5High-danger chances7
75All attempts (Corsi)48
Adjusted for score: FLA 66% · TOR 34%
Faceoffs · TOR won35%off44%neu70%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA1 / 5 · 1.06 xG
TOR1 / 7 · 2.70 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA0 / 13 · 1.48 xG
TOR3 / 13 · 1.24 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA0 / 57 · 0.86 xG
TOR0 / 28 · 0.40 xG

TOR went 3-for-13 from medium danger on 1.24 expected goals — 1.8 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
1 G · 3.40 xG · -2.4
TOR
4 G · 4.34 xG · -0.3
012345

FLA finished -2.4 against expected, TOR -0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
WRIST0/32
TIP IN0/7
SNAP1/6
BACKHAND0/6
SLAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/19
TOR
WRIST0/21
TIP IN1/4
SNAP2/5
BACKHAND1/3
SLAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/11
FLA
TOR
Off the rush
1 G on 29
1.96 xG
4 G on 27
3.29 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
0.92 xG
0 G on 1
0.21 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-32, TOR 0-for-21. TOR 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
S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 19/22 · .864
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/72.7+1.7
Medium3/131.2-1.8
Low0/280.4+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 · 31/32 · .969
+2.4
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.1+0.1
Medium0/131.5+1.5
Low0/570.9+0.9

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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
56 shots
1
Final
93 shots
TOR
37 shots
4
FLA attackTOR attack
FLA TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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
M. Knies
#23 · L · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:59 on ice · +2
N. Roy
#55 · C · TOR
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 14:51 on ice · +2
T. Stecher
#28 · D · TOR
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:09 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 6
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:35 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 projection model gives Florida a 51% edge, with an expected 2.6-2.5 scoreline — essentially a toss-up dressed in decimal places. When the model is this close, past performance and team construction are your only anchors.

The Panthers own the puck. Their 52.0% Corsi translates to territorial dominance, and their 49.0% expected-goal share suggests they're generating quality looks at a comparable rate to Toronto. But Toronto's xG% sits at 46.0%, and their PDO of 1.002 hints at getting more mileage from their chances than their volume would predict. Florida's 0.989 PDO suggests the opposite — they're shooting below their xG%, which in a close game can sting.

The edge here belongs to Florida's forwards. Sam Bennett remains their engine: 18 goals, 19 assists, a 0.97 expected-goal rate per 60 minutes, and a 13.1% shooting percentage that tracks close to his long-term average. Brad Marchand carries a 17-goal season with the Panthers and a 19.5% shooting clip — unsustainably hot. His 0.93 xG/60 suggests regression, though his six high-danger goals indicate he's creating the right chances, just capitalizing at a premium rate.

Toronto counters with Auston Matthews, whose 1.10 xG/60 is elite creation paired with 17 goals and 13 assists. His 10.6% shooting is closer to equilibrium than Marchand's, which makes his production more repeatable. John Tavares offers breadth: 15 goals, 24 assists, a 0.91 xG/60 rate, and a 12.4% shooting percentage. Tavares won't light up the scoresheet single-handedly, but his consistency is a ballast Toronto can lean on.

Both teams operate with zero high-danger goal rate and zero rebound goal rate — an oddity that suggests either tremendous defensive discipline or luck averaging toward the middle. Florida's defensive weak link is Brad Marchand; Toronto exposes Bo Groulx. These vulnerabilities matter only if the opponent can locate and exploit them, which in a coin-flip game assumes both teams execute at peak level.

Expect a territorial tilt favoring Florida. Expect Toronto to get its chances and need them. The 51% projection for the Panthers holds because possession and expected goals align in their direction. But PDO is a two-way street: if Florida's shooting regresses while Toronto's luck holds, the Leafs steal this game on volume and efficiency. That variance is why this one is genuinely unclear.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 51%
51%
FLA
Model favorite
51%
49%
FLA50TOR

FLA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 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
FLA← edge
edge →TOR
49.0%46.0%
52.0%45.0%
2.482.24
2.562.67
1.982.09
2.212.52
0.9891.002

FLA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 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
FLA
6-3-1
+0 GD · 2d rest
TOR
5-3-2
-1 GD · 2d rest
0.989
FLA 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 Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
FLA
Expected in goal
D. Tarasov
2 days rest.964 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR
Expected in goal
J. Woll
2 days rest.840 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
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
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