Backcheck
Recap · MIN at TOR

Wild pull away from the Maple Leafs

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

By the ModelJul 12, 1:49 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
MIN
Minnesota Wild
6
Home
TOR
Toronto Maple Leafs
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

5.24Expected goals3.94
57% share for the better side
39Shot attempts (SOG)30
7High-danger chances8
73Corsi (all attempts)54
Score-adjusted: 51% / 49%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
F. GustavssonMIN
+0.9
D. HildebyTOR
+1.2
J. WollTOR
-1.0

MIN finished +0.8 against expected, TOR -0.9 — D. Hildeby (TOR) saved 1.2 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
V. Tarasenko
#91 · R · MIN
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 16:15 TOI · +2
M. Foligno
#17 · L · MIN
3 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 14:13 TOI · +1
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 26:33 TOI · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • D. Hildeby (TOR) stopped 1.2 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 15 high-danger chances combined (TOR 8, MIN 7).
  • TOR was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 35 rush chances.
  • MIN was lethal off the rush — 6 goals on 29 rush chances.
  • TOR created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • MIN created 11 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • D. Hildeby (TOR) saved 5.2 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • MIN power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 13 PP shots (1.00 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · MIN at TOR · 7:30 PM ET

Wild at Maple Leafs: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 1:33 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
MIN
Model favorite
53%
47%
MIN50TOR

MIN by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MIN 2.62.4 TOR; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

MIN← edge
edge →TOR
52.0%5v5 xG%46.0%
48.0%Corsi%45.0%
2.55xGF / 602.24
2.40xGA / 602.67
2.04Goals for / gm2.09
1.93Goals against / gm2.52
1.007PDO — luck, not skill1.002

MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.007 vs 1.002) says MIN has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters