Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
← Tue, Feb 3 · the slate
Breakdown · TOR at EDM

Maple Leafs pull away from the Oilers

FinalTue, Feb 3
TORToronto Maple Leafs5EDMEdmonton Oilers2
The verdict · earned

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

TOR 5 · EDM 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:55 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 Maple Leafs beat the Oilers 5-2, but the underlying numbers call it nearly even—expected goals were 3.70–4.19 in Toronto's favor. This was a goaltending game, not a dominant one.

The Oilers controlled the shot volume: 57% of attempts (36–27 on goal). But shot volume masks quality. Toronto generated shots three times more dangerous—0.089 expected goals per shot versus Edmonton's 0.054—and dominated high-danger chances 7–1. The Oilers wasted their volume; the Leafs made theirs count.

A. Stolarz (TOR) stole this game. He saved 1.70 goals above expected on 36 shots (0.944 SV%), while C. Ingram (EDM) posted only 0.846. The goaltending gap decided it.

Toronto's rush game broke the Oilers down. The Leafs scored 3 goals on just 25 rush chances, converting at a rate that exposed Edmonton's transition defense. The power play added two goals on four shots (0.41 expected goals), showing efficiency on the man-advantage.

Edmonton underperformed their expected goals by 1.70 goals.

The turning point: Bobby McMann's wrist shot from the top of the circles (17:22 in the third).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 3
TOR
5
EDM
2

Maple Leafs pull away from the Oilers

Chances 4.2 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
4.19
EDM
3.70
53% of the chances47%

The board read TOR 5, EDM 2. The chances read TOR 4.2, EDM 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+0.8
goals above expected
TOR4.19 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
EDM3.70 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Oilers left 1.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 07:12TORM. Maccelli1–0
  2. P2 11:09EDMJ. Walman1–1
  3. P2 11:18TORM. Knies2–1
  4. P3 04:27EDMK. Kapanen2–2
  5. P3 07:42TORJ. TavaresPP3–2
  6. P3 08:13TORM. MaccelliPP4–2
  7. P3 17:22TORB. McMannEN5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
38 shots
5
Final
85 shots
EDM
47 shots
2
TOR attackEDM attack
TOR EDM Goal
38
shots · 5 in
47
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TOREDM
2 / 7
2.13 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.22 xG
3 / 15
1.61 xG
Medium
1 / 27
3.01 xG
0 / 25
0.45 xG
Low
1 / 40
0.46 xG

The Maple Leafs buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Stolarz
+1.7
TOR · 34/36
C
C. Ingram
+0.2
EDM · 22/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs pull away from the Oilers

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 8–9no goals
    2ndshots 12–17
    1. 07:12TORM. Maccelli(J. McCabe)1–0
    2. 11:09EDMJ. Walman(J. Samanski, J. Roslovic)1–1
    3. 11:18TORM. Knies(N. Roy)2–1
    3rdshots 7–10
    1. 04:27EDMK. Kapanen(V. Podkolzin, T. Emberson)2–2
    2. 07:42TORJ. Tavarespower play(W. Nylander, M. Knies)3–2
    3. 08:13TORM. Maccellipower play(M. Domi, O. Ekman-Larsson)4–2
    4. 17:22TORB. McMannempty net(A. Matthews)5–2

    score reads TOR–EDM

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.19
    TOR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.8
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.077
    TOR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    40.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.19Expected goals3.70
    TOR 53% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal36
    7High-danger chances1
    47All attempts (Corsi)68
    Adjusted for score: TOR 39% · EDM 61%
    Faceoffs · EDM won71%off27%neu41%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TOR2 / 7 · 2.13 xG
    EDM0 / 1 · 0.22 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TOR3 / 15 · 1.61 xG
    EDM1 / 27 · 3.01 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TOR0 / 25 · 0.45 xG
    EDM1 / 40 · 0.46 xG

    EDM went 1-for-27 from medium danger on 3.01 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TOR
    5 G · 4.19 xG · +0.8
    EDM
    2 G · 3.70 xG · -1.7
    0123456

    TOR finished +0.8 against expected, EDM -1.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TOR
    WRIST1/25
    SNAP1/4
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN2/3
    BACKHAND1/2
    BAT0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/9
    EDM
    WRIST0/14
    SNAP1/17
    SLAP1/4
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/5
    BAT0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/21
    TOR
    EDM
    Off the rush
    3 G on 25
    2.58 xG
    1 G on 36
    3.35 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.44 xG
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 1-for-25, EDM 0-for-14. 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
    A. Stolarz
    TOR · 34/36 · .944
    +1.7
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/10.2+0.2
    Medium1/273.0+2.0
    Low1/400.5-0.5

    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. Ingram
    EDM · 22/26 · .846
    +0.2
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/72.1+0.1
    Medium3/151.6-1.4
    Low0/250.5+0.5

    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

    85 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TOR
    38 shots
    5
    Final
    85 shots
    EDM
    47 shots
    2
    TOR attackEDM attack
    TOR EDM Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, EDM 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
    M. Knies
    #23 · L · TOR
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:28 on ice · +1
    M. Maccelli
    #63 · L · TOR
    2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 11:29 on ice · +1
    J. McCabe
    #22 · D · TOR
    0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 25:16 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Feb 3
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:07 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

    Edmonton projects as the pick. The model estimates a 2.4 to 2.8 goal spread with the Oilers favored at 57% win probability—a lean grounded in underlying play, not variance.

    The Oilers have momentum (5-4-1 over their last 10), while Toronto sits at -20 goal differential in the same span. The advantage deepens in underlying metrics. Edmonton controls play at 50.0% Corsi and 52.0% expected goals; Toronto manages 45.0% and 46.0% respectively. This is territorial dominance, not statistical noise.

    But the real edge is luck timing. Edmonton runs cold at a 0.982 PDO—superior play outpacing results, a position that typically corrects upward. Toronto's 1.002 PDO, conversely, means results are running ahead of underlying performance—vulnerable to regression the other direction. When both tendencies reverse simultaneously, Edmonton gains the timing advantage.

    Individual matchups compound this. Zach Hyman (1.23 xG/60, 14G 13A, 1 HD goal, 13.0% shooting) anchors Edmonton's offense with elite shot volume. Auston Matthews (1.10 xG/60, 17G 13A, 1 HD goal, 10.6% shooting) delivers similar scoring but from a shallower supporting cast. Connor McDavid (0.92 xG/60, 25G 33A, 5 HD goals, 13.7% shooting) represents an entirely different tier of playmaker. John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15G 24A, 3 HD goals, 12.4% shooting) is productive but operates in a narrower range.

    One oddity: both teams register 0% in hard-deadline goals and 0% in rebound conversion. This symmetry is unlikely to persist and could cut either way. Edmonton's Jake Walman and Toronto's Bo Groulx represent defensive vulnerabilities. Whoever exploits them first creates separation.

    The model's 57% favors Edmonton for good reason. Territory, luck cycle, and individual depth all point the same direction.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    EDM 57%
    57%
    EDM
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    TOR50EDM

    EDM by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.4–2.8 EDM; 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 →EDM
    46.0%52.0%
    45.0%50.0%
    2.242.64
    2.672.47
    2.092.13
    2.522.29
    1.0020.982

    EDM holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.982) 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 · 2d rest
    EDM
    5-4-1
    +5 GD · 2d rest
    1.002
    TOR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.982
    EDM PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    • The Oilers drive Corsi at 50.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Oilers are the hotter team by points pace (5-4-1 in their last 10).
    • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -20 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    TOR
    Expected in goal
    J. Woll
    2 days rest.933 last start
    Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    EDM
    Expected in goal
    T. Jarry
    2 days rest.750 last start
    Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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
    EDM
    Zach Hyman14G 13A
    1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
    Connor McDavid25G 33A
    0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page