Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater

Breakdown · TOR at VGK

Golden Knights edge the Maple Leafs in overtime

Final / OTThu, Jan 15

TORToronto Maple Leafs5 VGKVegas Golden Knights6

The verdict · earned

The Golden Knights earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

TOR 5 · VGK 6

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:03 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

The Golden Knights' 56% xG advantage (3.27–2.54) proved too much for Toronto to overcome, even after both teams massively outperformed their baselines—Vegas by 2.73 goals, Toronto by 2.46. The underlying quality gap held in a game decided by variance and execution.

Vegas controlled shot attempts (54%, 33–28) and was surgical in high-danger areas: 4 of 5 conversions (80%). Toronto scored two low-danger goals, chances A. Hill should have denied. J. Woll, meanwhile, surrendered 2.73 more goals than his workload warranted—the game's single clearest evidence of mismatched execution.

Toronto's rush game was the brighter spot. Five goals on 24 chances versus Vegas's three on 26 carried the Leafs through regulation. But Vegas's power play—3 PPG on 11 shots—and effective crashing (5 rebounds, 3 converted) shifted momentum when it mattered. Jack Eichel's backhander from the doorstep at 2:44 of overtime decided the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Jan 15

TOR

VGK

Golden Knights edge the Maple Leafs in overtime

Chances 2.5 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

2.54

VGK

3.27

44% of the chances56%

The board read TOR 5, VGK 6. The chances read TOR 2.5, VGK 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

VGK

+2.7

goals above expected

VGK3.27 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

TOR2.54 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

The Golden Knights scored 2.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 02:05TORM. Rielly1–0
P1 05:03TORW. Nylander2–0
P1 08:12VGKP. DorofeyevPP2–1
P1 09:57TORA. Matthews3–1
P2 05:51VGKK. Kolesar3–2
P2 12:46TORJ. TavaresPP4–2
P3 02:10VGKP. DorofeyevPP4–3

+4 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

TOR

40 shots

Final

88 shots

VGK

48 shots

TOR VGK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORVGK

1 / 5

1.16 xG

High danger

4 / 5

1.08 xG

2 / 7

0.75 xG

Medium

1 / 16

1.60 xG

2 / 43

0.63 xG

Low

1 / 42

0.59 xG

The Golden Knights buried 4 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A. Hill

−2.5

VGK · 23/28

J. Woll

−2.7

TOR · 27/33

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Golden Knights edge the Maple Leafs 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 15–10

02:05TORM. Rielly(W. Nylander, J. Tavares)1–0
05:03TORW. Nylander(M. Maccelli, B. Carlo)2–0
08:12VGKP. Dorofeyevpower play(M. Marner, J. Eichel)2–1
09:57TORA. Matthews(J. McCabe, T. Stecher)3–1

2ndshots 7–9

05:51VGKK. Kolesar(B. Bowman, N. Hanifin)3–2
12:46TORJ. Tavarespower play(M. Maccelli, M. Knies)4–2

3rdshots 6–13

02:10VGKP. Dorofeyevpower play(M. Marner, T. Hertl)4–3
08:58TORS. Laughton(M. Knies, S. Lorentz)5–3
10:14VGKM. Stone(I. Barbashev, J. Eichel)5–4
19:53VGKT. Hertlpower play(J. Eichel, M. Stone)5–5

OTshots 0–1

02:44VGKJ. Eichel(M. Stone)5–6

score reads TOR–VGK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.27

VGK chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.004

VGK puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

53.4%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.54Expected goals3.27

VGK 56% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal33

5High-danger chances5

55All attempts (Corsi)63

Adjusted for score: TOR 41% · VGK 59%

Faceoffs · VGK won60%off24%neu32%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR1 / 5 · 1.16 xG

VGK4 / 5 · 1.08 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR2 / 7 · 0.75 xG

VGK1 / 16 · 1.60 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR2 / 43 · 0.63 xG

VGK1 / 42 · 0.59 xG

VGK went 4-for-5 from high danger on 1.08 expected goals — 2.9 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

5 G · 2.54 xG · +2.5

VGK

6 G · 3.27 xG · +2.7

01234567

TOR finished +2.5 against expected, VGK +2.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST0/18

SLAP0/6

SNAP2/9

BACKHAND1/5

TIP IN2/2

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/15

VGK

WRIST2/27

SLAP1/8

SNAP0/3

BACKHAND2/4

TIP IN0/1

DEFLECTED1/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/15

TOR

VGK

Off the rush

5 G on 24

2.02 xG

3 G on 26

2.34 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

3 G on 5

0.69 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 0-for-18, VGK 2-for-27. 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

J. Woll

TOR · 27/33 · .818

-2.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger4/51.1-2.9

Medium1/161.6+0.6

Low1/420.6-0.4

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

A. Hill

VGK · 23/28 · .821

-2.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium2/70.8-1.3

Low2/430.6-1.4

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

40 shots

Final

88 shots

VGK

48 shots

TOR VGK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, VGK 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

J. Eichel

#9 · C · VGK

1 G · 3 A · 5 SOG · 24:35 on ice · +2

M. Stone

#61 · R · VGK

1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 23:25 on ice · +2

M. Marner

#93 · R · VGK

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 22:23 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 15

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:59 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 hands Vegas the edge here: 60% win probability, with a projected 2.2 to 2.7 goal spread favoring the Golden Knights.

The underlying play belongs to Vegas. They control 5v5 xG at 54.0% to Toronto's 46.0%—an 8-percentage-point gap—and dominate territory at 52.0% Corsi. That territorial dominance matters: the Maple Leafs can't generate chances they don't chase. Toronto's staying competitive despite being outshot in quality and volume.

But Toronto enters warmer. They've posted a 7-1-2 record in their last 10, accumulating points despite running a 45.0% Corsi. Pace does mask risk. The real question is whether Toronto can maintain a pace that exceeds its underlying shot profile.

Vegas carries the regression angle. Their PDO sits at 0.983—running cold by team standards—while Toronto's sits at 1.002. Vegas is due for positive variance to regress toward the mean, especially in a sport where shooting luck matters in close wins. PDO regression doesn't guarantee a win, but it typically creates margin in a tight game.

The rest advantage edges Vegas. The Golden Knights land on three days' recovery; Toronto comes in on one. Goaltending fatigue looms over this matchup. D. Hildeby backs up on the second half of a back-to-back, which typically signals either a fresh backup or a tired starter absorbing the load.

Vegas drives xG at a meaningful rate. Auston Matthews (1.10 xG/60, 17 goals, 13 assists, 10.6% shooting) and John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15 goals, 24 assists, 12.4% shooting) are Toronto's primary engines, but Vegas' collection of shot creators—particularly Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5 goals, 17 assists, 4.3% shooting)—chips steady pressure. Brandon Saad (marked inactive) was a secondary threat when healthy at 0.91 xG/60 with 3 goals and 6 assists.

Neither team cashes high-danger chances at an elevated rate. Both register 0% HD goal rates and 0% rebound rates, a rarity that flags either unusual variance luck or a stretch where scoring depth hasn't emerged. That creates opportunity for regression winners: Vegas, the PDO play.

Three Stars

Tomas Hertl (VGK) — steady shot generation (0.88 xG/60) meets Vegas' volume advantage
Auston Matthews (TOR) — will face constant pressure; can he maintain his 10.6% shooting clip?
D. Hildeby (TOR) — fatigue exposure; early heavy workload could tilt the rest edge

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VGK 60%

60%

VGK

Model favorite

40%

60%

TOR50VGK

VGK by 20 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score TOR 2.2–2.7 VGK; 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

TOR← edge

edge →VGK

46.0%54.0%

45.0%52.0%

2.242.52

2.672.11

2.092.12

2.522.10

1.0020.983

VGK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.983) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TOR

7-1-2

+10 GD · 1d rest

VGK

5-3-2

+7 GD · 3d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.983

VGK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Golden Knights drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
D. Hildeby is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Maple Leafs are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
The Golden Knights have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TOR

Expected in goal

D. Hildeby

back-to-back.854 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.

VGK

Expected in goal

C. Lindbom

3 days rest.900 last start

Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 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

VGK

Brandon Saad3G 6A

0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh

Tomas Hertl5G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page