Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater

Breakdown · TOR at WPG

Maple Leafs edge the Jets in overtime

Final / OTSat, Jan 17

TORToronto Maple Leafs4 WPGWinnipeg Jets3

The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.34–4.84 and won anyway.

TOR 4 · WPG 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:23 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 won a game the analytics said was nearly even—or leaning Winnipeg's way. The Jets' expected goals (4.84) beat the Leafs' (4.34), and Winnipeg commanded high-danger chances (9–6). But D. Hildeby stole the show, posting 1.84 goals saved above expected while C. Hellebuyck hit his model at 0.892 SV%. Shot volume slightly favored Toronto (37–30), yet the underlying hockey belonged to the Jets.

Max Domi settled it at 03:08 of overtime with a wrist shot from the slot. The goal capped an offensive free-for-all—15 high-danger chances combined as both teams hunted relentlessly. Toronto's rush attack clicked for three goals on 28 chances. Winnipeg matched the intensity with two on 32. Neither team capitalized on net-front chaos: Toronto created six rebound chances and buried zero, while Winnipeg generated ten and converted one.

Winnipeg's undoing was basic efficiency. The Jets underperformed their model by 1.84 goals, wasting the quality opportunities that nearly carried them to a point despite surrendering territory to Toronto's push.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Jan 17

TOR

WPG

Maple Leafs edge the Jets in overtime

Chances 4.3 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Jets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

4.34

WPG

4.84

47% of the chances53%

The board read TOR 4, WPG 3. The chances read TOR 4.3, WPG 4.8.

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

Luck check

TOR

−0.3

goals above expected

TOR4.34 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG4.84 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Jets left 1.8 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 02:23WPGA. Iafallo0–1
P2 08:59WPGK. Connor0–2
P2 09:22TORA. Matthews1–2
P3 02:28WPGN. Niederreiter1–3
P3 05:58TORO. Ekman-Larsson2–3
P3 15:33TORB. McMann3–3
OT 03:08TORM. Domi4–3

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

Where the shots came from

TOR

46 shots

Final

98 shots

WPG

52 shots

TOR WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORWPG

1 / 6

1.64 xG

High danger

1 / 9

2.37 xG

3 / 18

2.12 xG

Medium

1 / 17

1.68 xG

0 / 35

0.57 xG

Low

1 / 41

0.79 xG

High-danger looks: TOR 1 of 6, WPG 1 of 9.

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

In the net

D. Hildeby

+1.8

TOR · 27/30

C. Hellebuyck

+0.3

WPG · 33/37

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs edge the Jets 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 7–10no goals

2ndshots 10–7

02:23WPGA. Iafallo(L. Stanley, V. Namestnikov)0–1
08:59WPGK. Connor(G. Vilardi)0–2
09:22TORA. Matthews(M. Domi, M. Rielly)1–2

3rdshots 17–13

02:28WPGN. Niederreiter(V. Namestnikov, L. Schenn)1–3
05:58TORO. Ekman-Larsson(N. Robertson, E. Cowan)2–3
15:33TORB. McMann(O. Ekman-Larsson, M. Rielly)3–3

OTshots 3–0

03:08TORM. Domi(A. Matthews, O. Ekman-Larsson)4–3

score reads TOR–WPG

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

1.023

TOR puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

46.8%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.34Expected goals4.84

WPG 53% of the chance quality

37Shots on goal30

6High-danger chances9

59All attempts (Corsi)67

Adjusted for score: TOR 50% · WPG 51%

Faceoffs · WPG won37%off50%neu31%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR1 / 6 · 1.64 xG

WPG1 / 9 · 2.37 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR3 / 18 · 2.12 xG

WPG1 / 17 · 1.68 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR0 / 35 · 0.57 xG

WPG1 / 41 · 0.79 xG

WPG went 1-for-9 from high danger on 2.37 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

4 G · 4.34 xG · -0.3

WPG

3 G · 4.84 xG · -1.8

0123456

TOR finished -0.3 against expected, WPG -1.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST2/21

TIP IN1/4

SNAP0/6

BACKHAND0/6

SLAP1/5

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/2

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

OTHER0/13

WPG

WRIST0/30

TIP IN2/11

SNAP1/3

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/3

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

OTHER0/15

TOR

WPG

Off the rush

3 G on 28

2.63 xG

2 G on 32

2.49 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

1.12 xG

1 G on 10

1.86 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 2-for-21, WPG 0-for-30. TOR 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

D. Hildeby

TOR · 27/30 · .900

+1.8

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/92.4+1.4

Medium1/171.7+0.7

Low1/410.8-0.2

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

C. Hellebuyck

WPG · 33/37 · .892

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.6+0.6

Medium3/182.1-0.9

Low0/350.6+0.6

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

98 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

46 shots

Final

98 shots

WPG

52 shots

TOR WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

O. Ekman-Larsson

#95 · D · TOR

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 25:10 on ice · +4

A. Matthews

#34 · C · TOR

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 21:38 on ice · +2

M. Domi

#11 · C · TOR

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:14 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 17

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:20 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 TOR 2.4–2.6 WPG game with the Jets at 54% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Toronto has momentum, riding a 6-1-3 stretch in their last 10 games. But Winnipeg's underlying numbers paint a different picture. The Jets drive Corsi at 49.0% to Toronto's 45.0%, and they own a 48.0% expected-goals share against the Leafs' 46.0%. Territorial tilt favors Winnipeg, and that advantage shows up consistently across multiple dimensions of play.

What matters is that the PDO numbers stay neutral. Winnipeg's sits at 0.998 while Toronto's is 1.002—negligible variance in either direction. This means we're comparing two teams' actual talent levels, not residual luck or random bounces masking deeper problems.

Both teams face a goaltending complication: C. Hellebuyck and J. Woll are each on a back-to-back, so watch for possible backup starts or tired starters. A worn-down goaltender amplifies underlying defensive breakdowns.

The edge wars turn on four forwards who will define this game. Auston Matthews leads Toronto with 17 goals and 13 assists, generating 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes at a 10.6% shooting clip. He's complemented by John Tavares, who has 15 goals and 24 assists at 0.91 xG/60—less volume, but 3 high-danger chances and a 12.4% efficiency suggest he's taking the right shots. For Winnipeg, Kyle Connor's 25 goals and 30 assists represent clean cumulative production, though 0.83 xG/60 at 13.0% shooting indicates some fortunate sequencing. Nino Niederreiter is the one to fear: 0.87 xG/60 with 3 high-danger goals in only 6 total, a conversion rate that punishes defensive gaps.

Defensively, Bo Groulx (Toronto) and Colin Miller (Winnipeg) will be tested by forwards who know exactly where to operate.

This remains a genuine coin flip. Winnipeg's territorial edge is measurable and real. Toronto's recent 6-1-3 streak cuts the other way. The oddsmakers got it right.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

WPG 54%

54%

WPG

Model favorite

46%

54%

TOR50WPG

WPG by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.4–2.6 WPG; 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 →WPG

46.0%48.0%

45.0%49.0%

2.242.34

2.672.55

2.091.90

2.522.10

1.0020.998

WPG holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.998) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TOR

6-1-3

+7 GD · 1d rest

WPG

4-5-1

+2 GD · 1d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

WPG PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Jets drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Jets drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
C. Hellebuyck is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Woll 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 (6-1-3 in their last 10).

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TOR

Expected in goal

J. Woll

back-to-back.818 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.

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

back-to-back.941 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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

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

WPG

Nino Niederreiter6G 6A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh

Kyle Connor25G 30A

0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page