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

Maple Leafs edge the Avalanche in overtime

The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.97–3.74 and won anyway.

TOR 4 · COL 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:31 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

Colorado dominated the underlying metrics and still lost. The Avalanche controlled 56% of expected goals (3.74–2.97), a gap that should have settled the game — instead, Toronto won it in overtime when William Nylander scored at 03:59.

The Avalanche were lethal in transition, scoring three goals on exactly 31 rush chances. Toronto matched that output on identical volume, scoring four. This is variance made visible: Colorado undershooting its model by 0.74 goals while Toronto overshot by 1.03.

The goaltenders decided it. T. Miner stopped 28 of 31 shots (0.903 SV%), respectable but beneath expectation — premium chances landed and went unanswered. J. Woll posted a 0.912 SV% (31 of 34), outperforming expectation by 0.74 goals. That gap was the game.

High-danger chances finished 3–3, so both teams created equal Grade-A looks. Colorado executed in transition during regulation but couldn't finish when overtime arrived. Toronto got two goals from low-danger areas — exactly the kind of variance that doesn't repeat.

N. MacKinnon (COL) led with three assists in 24:40. C. Makar (COL) added a goal and assist in 27:22. A. Matthews (TOR) capped it with a goal and assist in 25:29.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 12
TOR
4
COL
3

Maple Leafs edge the Avalanche in overtime

Chances 3.0 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
2.97
COL
3.74
44% of the chances56%

The board read TOR 4, COL 3. The chances read TOR 3.0, COL 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+1.0
goals above expected
TOR2.97 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
COL3.74 expected · 3 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
  1. P1 11:15TORE. Cowan1–0
  2. P1 16:12COLC. Makar1–1
  3. P1 17:53COLB. NelsonPP1–2
  4. P2 02:12TORB. McMann2–2
  5. P3 10:24TORA. Matthews3–2
  6. P3 12:55COLM. Necas3–3
  7. OT 03:59TORW. Nylander4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
42 shots
4
Final
88 shots
COL
46 shots
3
TOR attackCOL attack
TOR COL Goal
42
shots · 4 in
46
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORCOL
0 / 3
0.79 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.70 xG
2 / 13
1.54 xG
Medium
2 / 20
2.48 xG
2 / 38
0.64 xG
Low
1 / 48
0.56 xG

The Avalanche went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
J. Woll
+0.7
TOR · 31/34
C
T. Miner
−0.0
COL · 28/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs edge the Avalanche 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 15–13
  1. 11:15TORE. Cowan1–0
  2. 16:12COLC. Makar(M. Necas, N. MacKinnon)1–1
  3. 17:53COLB. Nelsonpower play(N. MacKinnon, C. Makar)1–2
2ndshots 9–7
  1. 02:12TORB. McMann2–2
3rdshots 5–12
  1. 10:24TORA. Matthews(W. Nylander, O. Ekman-Larsson)3–2
  2. 12:55COLM. Necas(N. MacKinnon)3–3
OTshots 3–2
  1. 03:59TORW. Nylander(O. Ekman-Larsson, A. Matthews)4–3

score reads TOR–COL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.97
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.032
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.97Expected goals3.74
COL 56% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal34
3High-danger chances3
54All attempts (Corsi)71
Adjusted for score: TOR 43% · COL 57%
Faceoffs · COL won65%off28%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TOR0 / 3 · 0.79 xG
COL0 / 3 · 0.70 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TOR2 / 13 · 1.54 xG
COL2 / 20 · 2.48 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TOR2 / 38 · 0.64 xG
COL1 / 48 · 0.56 xG

TOR went 2-for-38 from low danger on 0.64 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TOR
4 G · 2.97 xG · +1.0
COL
3 G · 3.74 xG · -0.7
012345

TOR finished +1.0 against expected, COL -0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TOR
WRIST3/27
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/4
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/6
OTHER1/13
COL
WRIST1/23
SLAP1/9
SNAP0/6
TIP IN1/7
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/25
TOR
COL
Off the rush
4 G on 31
2.56 xG
3 G on 31
3.09 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.19 xG
0 G on 1
0.14 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 3-for-27, COL 1-for-23. 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
J. Woll
TOR · 31/34 · .912
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium2/202.5+0.5
Low1/480.6-0.4

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

T. Miner
COL · 28/31 · .903
-0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.8+0.8
Medium2/131.5-0.5
Low2/380.6-1.4

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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TOR
42 shots
4
Final
88 shots
COL
46 shots
3
TOR attackCOL attack
TOR COL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, COL 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. MacKinnon
#29 · C · COL
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 24:40 on ice · +1
C. Makar
#8 · D · COL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 27:22 on ice
A. Matthews
#34 · C · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 25:29 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Jan 12
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:30 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

Colorado's model projects a 2.3 to 3.0 game with the Avalanche at 62% win probability, a lead built entirely on possession dominance.

The Avalanche control expected goals at 57.0% and Corsi at 57.0%, against Toronto's 46.0% and 45.0%. That gap means Colorado will dictate pace and generate chances at a higher rate. The underlying play strongly favors Colorado.

One caveat: Colorado's PDO is 1.021, running hot through shooting and goaltending luck. Toronto sits at 1.002, closer to baseline. When Colorado's numbers regress to the mean—and they will—the goal differential shrinks. The Avalanche should still win, but not with the comfortable margin the full model implies.

Toronto's one leverage point is goaltender fatigue. J. Woll plays on back-to-back, raising the odds of a backup start or a tired starter getting the crease.

Players to Watch

Toronto

  • Auston Matthews (1.10 xG/60, 17G 13A, 1 HD goal, 10.6% shooting)
  • John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15G 24A, 3 HD goals, 12.4% shooting)

Colorado

  • Artturi Lehkonen (1.11 xG/60, 18G 22A, 6 HD goals, 14.9% shooting)
  • Ross Colton (1.10 xG/60, 7G 15A, 1 HD goal, 4.9% shooting)

Matthews and Lehkonen generate nearly identical offensive volume at 1.10 and 1.11 xG per 60, yet Lehkonen has 6 high-danger goals against Matthews's 1. Tavares trails the pace, and Colton trails further. The Leafs have elite talent. Colorado's elite talent is more prolific.

The model's 62% case for Colorado holds unless PDO collapses overnight or Woll steals the game. Most nights, Colorado wins as projected.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 62%
62%
COL
Model favorite
38%
62%
TOR50COL

COL by 24 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score TOR 2.3–3.0 COL; 17% 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 →COL
46.0%57.0%
45.0%57.0%
2.243.03
2.672.30
2.092.63
2.521.56
1.0021.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TOR
7-1-2
+13 GD · 1d rest
COL
8-2-0
+23 GD · 2d rest
1.002
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.021
COL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Woll is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TOR
Expected in goal
J. Woll
back-to-back1.000 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.

COL
Expected in goal
T. Miner
2 days rest1.000 last start
Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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
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
COL
Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
Ross Colton7G 15A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next