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

Maple Leafs shut out the Canucks, 5-0

The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.82–3.12 and won anyway.

VAN 0 · TOR 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:07 AMxG: 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 5-0 victory over Vancouver reads like a heist. The Canucks dominated the underlying metrics—3.82 expected goals to 3.12, holding 55% at 5v5—and still lost by five. In a sport ruled by volume and quality, the Leafs did neither better. Yet there was the scoreboard.

The difference was goaltending. J. Woll saved 3.82 goals above expected: all 29 shots faced, including every high-danger chance. For Vancouver, the gap was worse. T. Demko gave up 2.22 goals above expected in six shots, while K. Lankinen posted a 0.889 save percentage on 18 attempts. Woll stole the game; Demko gave it away.

The Leafs' edge was shooting quality. At 0.071 expected goals per shot versus Vancouver's 0.054, their chances were genuinely dangerous. They converted ruthlessly: five goals on 26 rush chances, a rate that speaks to both depth and opportunity. The Canucks couldn't finish. Zero on six high-danger attempts—a miss rate that will regress, but didn't today. They created three rebound chances and buried none.

Nicholas Robertson's snap shot from the high slot at 19:46 of the third period was the turning point. By then, though, Woll had already rewritten the story. The Leafs won a game Vancouver played well enough to take—not because Toronto played better hockey, but because Toronto played better when it counted.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 10
VAN
0
TOR
5

Maple Leafs shut out the Canucks, 5-0

Chances 3.8 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
3.82
TOR
3.12
55% of the chances45%

The board read VAN 0, TOR 5. The chances read VAN 3.8, TOR 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+1.9
goals above expected
TOR3.12 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN3.82 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Maple Leafs scored 1.9 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 08:03TORM. MaccelliPP0–1
  2. P1 16:31TORM. Domi0–2
  3. P1 19:40TORW. Nylander0–3
  4. P2 13:07TORJ. Tavares0–4
  5. P3 19:46TORN. RobertsonPP0–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
50 shots
0
Final
84 shots
TOR
34 shots
5
VAN attackTOR attack
VAN TOR Goal
50
shots · 0 in
34
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANTOR
0 / 6
1.54 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.45 xG
0 / 16
1.61 xG
Medium
4 / 21
2.43 xG
0 / 49
0.67 xG
Low
0 / 21
0.24 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Woll
+3.8
TOR · 29/29
B+
K. Lankinen
+1.1
VAN · 16/18
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs shut out the Canucks, 5-0

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 15–6
  1. 08:03TORM. Maccellipower play(W. Nylander, A. Matthews)0–1
  2. 16:31TORM. Domi(T. Stecher)0–2
  3. 19:40TORW. Nylander(S. Lorentz, B. Carlo)0–3
2ndshots 8–12
  1. 13:07TORJ. Tavares(W. Nylander)0–4
3rdshots 6–6
  1. 19:46TORN. Robertsonpower play0–5

score reads VAN–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.12
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.114
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
38.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.82Expected goals3.12
VAN 55% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal24
6High-danger chances2
71All attempts (Corsi)44
Adjusted for score: VAN 68% · TOR 32%
Faceoffs · TOR won54%off71%neu77%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN0 / 6 · 1.54 xG
TOR1 / 2 · 0.45 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN0 / 16 · 1.61 xG
TOR4 / 21 · 2.43 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 49 · 0.67 xG
TOR0 / 21 · 0.24 xG

VAN went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.61 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
0 G · 3.82 xG · -3.8
TOR
5 G · 3.12 xG · +1.9
0123456

VAN finished -3.8 against expected, TOR +1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST0/20
TIP IN0/7
SNAP0/5
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/6
DEFLECTED0/4
WRAP AROUND0/3
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/21
TOR
WRIST2/17
TIP IN0/3
SNAP1/4
BACKHAND1/5
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/10
VAN
TOR
Off the rush
0 G on 34
2.72 xG
5 G on 26
2.74 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.58 xG
0 G on 0
0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 0-for-20, TOR 2-for-17. TOR scored 5 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
K. Lankinen
VAN · 16/18 · .889
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.6
Medium4/212.4-1.6
Low0/210.2+0.2

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

T. Demko
VAN · 3/6 · .500
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.6
Medium4/212.4-1.6
Low0/210.2+0.2

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 · 29/29 · 1.000
+3.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.5+1.5
Medium0/161.6+1.6
Low0/490.7+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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
50 shots
0
Final
84 shots
TOR
34 shots
5
VAN attackTOR attack
VAN TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 13:16 on ice · +2
T. Stecher
#28 · D · TOR
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:43 on ice · +1
B. Carlo
#25 · D · TOR
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 20:35 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 10
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:04 AMEdited 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 2.5–2.7 goal spread with Toronto at 54% win probability. This is about as close as it gets.

Toronto's recent form supports that narrow edge: the Maple Leafs are 6-2-2 in their last 10, while Vancouver sits at -12 goal differential over the same stretch. The underlying metrics, though, complicate the picture. Toronto's 46.0% expected goals share barely outpaces Vancouver's 44.0%, and the Canucks actually lead in Corsi% at 46.0% to the Leafs' 45.0%. Vancouver's PDO of 0.974 suggests they're running cold on conversion and goaltending luck—the exact conditions that produce positive regression.

Both D. Hildeby and K. Lankinen are navigating back-to-backs, forcing both coaches to choose between a rested backup and a tired starter.

The matchup lives in scoring efficiency. Filip Chytil anchors Vancouver's offense at 1.03 expected goals per 60 minutes with a 15.0% shooting percentage, though his 3 goals and 1 hard-chance goal suggest streakiness over consistency. Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13 goals, 11.8% shooting) operates at lower volume.

Toronto's Auston Matthews presents a different threat at 1.10 xG/60 and 17 goals. John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15 goals, 12.4% shooting, 24 assists) has been more creative than finishing-oriented, with only 3 hard-chance goals.

Both teams carry structural defensive gaps. Vancouver has generated 0% of its goals from hard chances or rebounds—a sign that second-chance opportunities aren't materializing, which points beyond individual performance (Victor Mancini) to system-level issues. Toronto mirrors this concern with Bo Groulx as the defensive pressure point and 0% hard-chance conversion.

This is genuinely close. Toronto's hot streak and home-ice advantage justify the 54% projection. But Vancouver's superior underlying metrics and due regression make them a live threat in what amounts to a near-perfect toss-up.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TOR 54%
54%
TOR
Model favorite
46%
54%
VAN50TOR

TOR by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VAN 2.5–2.7 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
VAN← edge
edge →TOR
44.0%46.0%
46.0%45.0%
2.222.24
2.812.67
1.602.09
2.562.52
0.9741.002

TOR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 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
VAN
3-5-2
-12 GD · 1d rest
TOR
6-2-2
+6 GD · 1d rest
0.974
VAN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.002
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • D. Hildeby is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • K. Lankinen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Maple Leafs are the hotter team by points pace (6-2-2 in their last 10).
  • The Canucks are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
back-to-back.833 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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.

TOR
Expected in goal
D. Hildeby
back-to-back.957 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
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% 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