Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater

Breakdown · TOR at VAN

Maple Leafs run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTSat, Jan 31

TORToronto Maple Leafs3 VANVancouver Canucks2

The verdict · earned

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

TOR 3 · VAN 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:37 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 dominated the underlying metrics — 60% of expected goals and 10 high-danger chances to Vancouver's six — yet barely escaped with a 3-2 shootout win. The Canucks' goalie N. Tolopilo was exceptional (39/41 saves, +3.45 goals above expected), keeping his team alive despite the play imbalance. Toronto's J. Woll was also strong (28/30, +1.58), but Tolopilo's performance was the more remarkable.

Both offenses misfired when it mattered most. Toronto went 0-for-10 on high-danger chances; Vancouver went 0-for-6. Toronto underperformed its expected goals by 2.45 (5.45 xG, 3 scored), while Vancouver underperformed by 1.58 (3.58 xG, 2 scored). The Maple Leafs controlled 41 shot attempts to Vancouver's 30.

Auston Matthews won the shootout with a backhander from the doorstep. O. Ekman-Larsson had the assist (28:10 of ice time). M. Domi scored in regulation (20:08).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Jan 31

TOR

VAN

Maple Leafs run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.5 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

5.45

VAN

3.58

60% of the chances40%

The board read TOR 3, VAN 2. The chances read TOR 5.5, VAN 3.6.

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

Luck check

TOR

−2.5

goals above expected

TOR5.45 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN3.58 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Canucks left 1.6 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 01:55VANJ. Lekkerimäki0–1
P2 13:34TORN. Roy1–1
P2 14:45VANT. Willander1–2
P3 02:32TORM. Domi2–2
SO 00:00TORW. NylanderPP2–2
SO 00:00TORA. MatthewsPP2–2

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

Where the shots came from

TOR

69 shots

Final

115 shots

VAN

46 shots

TOR VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

shots · 4 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORVAN

0 / 10

2.56 xG

High danger

0 / 6

1.43 xG

1 / 18

1.81 xG

Medium

2 / 14

1.59 xG

1 / 64

1.08 xG

Low

0 / 35

0.56 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

N. Tolopilo

+3.5

VAN · 39/41

J. Woll

+1.6

TOR · 28/30

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs run the Canucks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 7–7no goals

2ndshots 11–14

01:55VANJ. Lekkerimäki(L. Ohgren, P. Joseph)0–1
13:34TORN. Roy(N. Robertson, O. Ekman-Larsson)1–1
14:45VANT. Willander(E. Kane, E. Pettersson)1–2

3rdshots 18–5

02:32TORM. Domi(A. Matthews, B. McMann)2–2

OTshots 5–4no goals

00:00TORW. Nylanderpower play2–2
00:00TORA. Matthewspower play2–2

score reads TOR–VAN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.45

TOR chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.5

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.985

TOR puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

62.6%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.45Expected goals3.58

TOR 60% of the chance quality

41Shots on goal30

10High-danger chances6

92All attempts (Corsi)55

Adjusted for score: TOR 64% · VAN 36%

Faceoffs · VAN won42%off40%neu65%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR0 / 10 · 2.56 xG

VAN0 / 6 · 1.43 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR1 / 18 · 1.81 xG

VAN2 / 14 · 1.59 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR1 / 64 · 1.08 xG

VAN0 / 35 · 0.56 xG

TOR went 0-for-10 from high danger on 2.56 expected goals — 2.6 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

3 G · 5.45 xG · -2.5

VAN

2 G · 3.58 xG · -1.6

0123456

TOR finished -2.5 against expected, VAN -1.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

SNAP1/37

WRIST0/10

TIP IN0/7

BACKHAND0/5

SLAP1/6

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/25

VAN

SNAP2/3

WRIST0/27

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/5

SLAP0/4

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/11

TOR

VAN

Off the rush

2 G on 43

3.54 xG

2 G on 24

2.53 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

1.01 xG

0 G on 4

0.46 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TOR went 1-for-37, VAN 2-for-3. TOR scored 2 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 · 28/30 · .933

+1.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.4+1.4

Medium2/141.6-0.4

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

N. Tolopilo

VAN · 39/41 · .951

+3.5

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/102.6+2.6

Medium1/181.8+0.8

Low1/641.1+0.1

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

115 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

69 shots

Final

115 shots

VAN

46 shots

TOR VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

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

0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 28:10 on ice · +1

A. Matthews

#34 · C · TOR

0 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 22:30 on ice · +1

M. Domi

#11 · C · TOR

1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 20:08 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 31

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:32 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 2.5-2.6 VAN game with Vancouver at 51% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Both teams are drowning. Toronto is -20 in goal differential over its last 10 games; Vancouver sits -16. Yet their underlying 5v5 numbers reveal a gentler gap: Toronto leads in expected goals (46.0% xG% vs. 44.0%) and trails slightly in puck possession (45.0% Corsi% vs. 46.0%). The Canucks are the regression candidate—their 0.974 PDO is depressed and due for positive bounce-back.

Goaltending clouds the matchup. N. Tolopilo and A. Stolarz are both working back-to-backs, raising the specter of tired starters or unexpected backups.

Auston Matthews powers Toronto's attack at 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes, translating to 17 goals and 13 assists. His 10.6% shooting rate suggests downward regression looms. John Tavares steadies the flank at 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals and 24 assists on a warmer 12.4% shooting rate. Vancouver counters with Filip Chytil, who generates 1.03 xG/60 despite scoring just 3 goals with 0 assists—his 15.0% shooting rate will regress. Drew O'Connor contributes at 0.85 xG/60 with 13 goals and 11 assists, closer to sustainable 11.8% shooting rates.

Neither team scores reliably on high-danger chances. Both sit at 0% on high-danger goals and 0% on rebounds—a statistical impossibility that signals either a tracking error or a genuine offensive malfunction. Whoever breaks out of this pattern first likely wins.

Toronto's defensive vulnerability centers on Bo Groulx. Vancouver's mirrors the problem in Victor Mancini. Two fragile blue lines meet two struggling offenses. The coin flip holds.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VAN 51%

51%

VAN

Model favorite

49%

51%

TOR50VAN

VAN by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TOR 2.5–2.6 VAN; 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 →VAN

46.0%44.0%

45.0%46.0%

2.242.22

2.672.81

2.091.60

2.522.56

1.0020.974

TOR holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.974) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TOR

2-6-2

-20 GD · 1d rest

VAN

2-8-0

-16 GD · 1d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.974

VAN PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

N. Tolopilo is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Stolarz is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Canucks are underwater at -16 goal differential over their last 10.
The Maple Leafs are underwater at -20 goal differential over their last 10.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TOR

Expected in goal

A. Stolarz

back-to-back.810 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.

VAN

Expected in goal

N. Tolopilo

back-to-back1.000 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page