Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
← Mon, Jan 19 · the slate
Breakdown · MIN at TOR

Wild pull away from the Maple Leafs

FinalMon, Jan 19
MINMinnesota Wild6TORToronto Maple Leafs3
The verdict · earned

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

MIN 6 · TOR 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:49 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

Minnesota's 6-3 win masked a closer shot battle: the Maple Leafs held 44% of shot attempts (30-39) yet scored just one-third of the goals. Expected goals (5.24-3.94, Minnesota 57%) explained the gap—Minnesota's shots were far more dangerous. The underlying numbers backed the blowout.

Toronto's goaltending split was decisive. D. Hildeby excelled: 1.000 SV% and 1.24 goals above expected marked an elite performance. J. Woll struggled: 24 saves on 29 shots (0.828 SV%, -1.00 vs expected) left him short of his chances. F. Gustavsson (MIN) was solid (0.900 SV%, +0.94 vs expected).

The rushing divergence was telling: Minnesota converted six of 29 rush attempts; Toronto managed two of 35. Minnesota's power play struck twice on 13 PP shots (1.00 xG). Toronto created three rebound chances and converted one; Minnesota generated 11 and converted none.

M. Foligno led with three goals. V. Tarasenko contributed two goals and one assist. Q. Hughes posted two assists.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 19
MIN
6
TOR
3

Wild pull away from the Maple Leafs

Chances 5.2 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
5.24
TOR
3.94
57% of the chances43%

The board read MIN 6, TOR 3. The chances read MIN 5.2, TOR 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+0.8
goals above expected
MIN5.24 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR3.94 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 04:45MINV. TarasenkoPP1–0
  2. P1 10:29MINR. Hartman2–0
  3. P1 18:24TORJ. TavaresPP2–1
  4. P2 06:53MINM. Foligno3–1
  5. P2 08:24MINV. Tarasenko4–1
  6. P2 19:14MINM. FolignoPP5–1
  7. P3 06:27TORN. Robertson5–2
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
56 shots
6
Final
97 shots
TOR
41 shots
3
MIN attackTOR attack
MIN TOR Goal
56
shots · 6 in
41
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINTOR
2 / 7
2.40 xG
High danger
2 / 8
2.37 xG
3 / 22
2.29 xG
Medium
1 / 11
0.96 xG
1 / 44
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.61 xG

The Wild buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Hildeby
+5.2
TOR · 9/9
B+
F. Gustavsson
+0.9
MIN · 27/30
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild pull away from the Maple Leafs

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 9–8
  1. 04:45MINV. Tarasenkopower play(R. Hartman, K. Kaprizov)1–0
  2. 10:29MINR. Hartman(M. Zuccarello, K. Kaprizov)2–0
  3. 18:24TORJ. Tavarespower play(M. Knies, A. Matthews)2–1
2ndshots 20–8
  1. 06:53MINM. Foligno(B. Faber, Q. Hughes)3–1
  2. 08:24MINV. Tarasenko(Q. Hughes)4–1
  3. 19:14MINM. Folignopower play(B. Faber, D. Yurov)5–1
3rdshots 10–14
  1. 06:27TORN. Robertson(N. Roy, E. Cowan)5–2
  2. 15:02TORA. Matthews(M. Domi)5–3
  3. 17:22MINM. Folignoempty net(V. Tarasenko, N. Sturm)6–3

score reads MIN–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.24
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.027
MIN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
57.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.24Expected goals3.94
MIN 57% of the chance quality
39Shots on goal30
7High-danger chances8
73All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: MIN 51% · TOR 49%
Faceoffs · TOR won56%off61%neu44%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MIN2 / 7 · 2.40 xG
TOR2 / 8 · 2.37 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MIN3 / 22 · 2.29 xG
TOR1 / 11 · 0.96 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MIN1 / 44 · 0.56 xG
TOR0 / 35 · 0.61 xG

MIN went 3-for-22 from medium danger on 2.29 expected goals — 0.7 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MIN
6 G · 5.24 xG · +0.8
TOR
3 G · 3.94 xG · -0.9
01234567

MIN finished +0.8 against expected, TOR -0.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MIN
WRIST3/38
TIP IN2/8
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND1/2
SNAP0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/17
TOR
WRIST1/23
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND1/4
SNAP0/4
DEFLECTED1/2
POKE0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/13
MIN
TOR
Off the rush
6 G on 29
3.10 xG
2 G on 35
3.17 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 11
1.11 xG
1 G on 3
0.68 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 3-for-38, TOR 1-for-23. MIN scored 6 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
F. Gustavsson
MIN · 27/30 · .900
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.4+0.4
Medium1/111.0-0.0
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

D. Hildeby
TOR · 9/9 · 1.000
+5.2
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/72.4+0.4
Medium3/222.3-0.7
Low1/440.6-0.4

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

J. Woll
TOR · 24/29 · .828
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/72.4+0.4
Medium3/222.3-0.7
Low1/440.6-0.4

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

97 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MIN
56 shots
6
Final
97 shots
TOR
41 shots
3
MIN attackTOR attack
MIN TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN 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
V. Tarasenko
#91 · R · MIN
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 16:15 on ice · +2
M. Foligno
#17 · L · MIN
3 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 14:13 on ice · +1
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 26:33 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Jan 19
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:33 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 MIN 2.6 - 2.4 TOR game with the Wild at 53% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Minnesota owns the underlying play. The Wild generate 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 to Toronto's 46.0%, backed by 48.0% Corsi% versus 45.0%. Neither team's PDO suggests luck is the differentiator (MIN 1.007, TOR 1.002), so these edges reflect genuine control.

But Toronto has form. The Leafs are 7-1-2 in their last ten — enough to offset structural disadvantage in a single game.

Goaltending advantage shifts to Minnesota. D. Hildeby on a back-to-back means either a backup or fatigued minutes when it matters most.

Minnesota's attack flows through Matt Boldy and Robby Fabbri. Boldy has 22 goals and 18 assists with 5 high-danger tallies at 0.89 xG/60, shooting 13.7%. Fabbri, at 6.9% shooting with 2 goals and 3 assists, is likely out — a meaningful loss.

Toronto counters with Auston Matthews and John Tavares. Matthews (1.10 xG/60, 17 goals, 13 assists) generates chances at an elite rate. Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15 goals, 24 assists) brings 3 high-danger tallies on 12.4% shooting.

Defensive vulnerabilities exist on both sides. Matt Kiersted represents Minnesota's weakness; Bo Groulx does the same for Toronto.

Minnesota's control meets Toronto's momentum. Structural edge and hot form both matter. In one game, they cancel out.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 53%
53%
MIN
Model favorite
53%
47%
MIN50TOR

MIN by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MIN 2.6–2.4 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
MIN← edge
edge →TOR
52.0%46.0%
48.0%45.0%
2.552.24
2.402.67
2.042.09
1.932.52
1.0071.002

MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 1.002) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MIN
4-3-3
-4 GD · 2d rest
TOR
7-1-2
+9 GD · 1d rest
1.007
MIN 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 Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • 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).
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MIN
Expected in goal
F. Gustavsson
2 days rest.833 last start
Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR
Expected in goal
D. Hildeby
back-to-back.900 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
MIN
Matt Boldy22G 18A
0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Robby Fabbri2G 3A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% 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

Back to the front page