Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · OTT at TOR

Senators pull away from the Maple Leafs

The verdict · earned

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

OTT 5 · TOR 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:52 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 generated superior scoring chances but lost 5-2. The Leafs created six high-danger opportunities to Ottawa's three and maintained better shot efficiency—0.072 expected goals per attempt vs. the Senators' 0.053. On 23 attempts, Toronto produced 3.09 expected goals; Ottawa, on 40, generated 3.90 through aggressive finishing.

Goaltending decided the game. J. Woll saved 23 of 28 shots (0.821 SV%), surrendering 2.27 more goals than his xG model predicted. L. Ullmark saved 21 of 23, outperforming by 1.09. Toronto also saw A. Stolarz play a perfect game before Woll took over.

D. Cozens's wrist shot from the high slot at 16:06 of the second period was the turning point. Ottawa scored four goals on 36 rush chances—lethal in transition. Toronto crashed effectively (seven rebound opportunities) but couldn't survive Woll's collapse.

This illustrates why possession metrics only predict outcomes when execution meets opportunity.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 28
OTT
5
TOR
2

Senators pull away from the Maple Leafs

Chances 3.9 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.90
TOR
3.09
56% of the chances44%

The board read OTT 5, TOR 2. The chances read OTT 3.9, TOR 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+1.1
goals above expected
OTT3.90 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR3.09 expected · 2 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 02:52TORM. Rielly0–1
  2. P1 10:59OTTT. Chabot1–1
  3. P2 03:03OTTD. Cozens2–1
  4. P2 13:05OTTD. Batherson3–1
  5. P2 13:56TORW. Nylander3–2
  6. P2 15:15OTTD. Batherson4–2
  7. P2 16:06OTTD. CozensPP5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
59 shots
5
Final
96 shots
TOR
37 shots
2
OTT attackTOR attack
OTT TOR Goal
59
shots · 5 in
37
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTTOR
0 / 3
0.73 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.78 xG
4 / 21
2.14 xG
Medium
1 / 5
0.70 xG
1 / 50
1.03 xG
Low
0 / 32
0.61 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 0 of 3, TOR 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Stolarz
+3.9
TOR · 12/12
B+
L. Ullmark
+1.1
OTT · 21/23
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators 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 16–2
  1. 02:52TORM. Rielly(A. Matthews, J. McCabe)0–1
  2. 10:59OTTT. Chabot(B. Tkachuk, D. Cozens)1–1
2ndshots 15–8
  1. 03:03OTTD. Cozens(T. Chabot, F. Zetterlund)2–1
  2. 13:05OTTD. Batherson3–1
  3. 13:56TORW. Nylander(S. Laughton, M. Maccelli)3–2
  4. 15:15OTTD. Batherson4–2
  5. 16:06OTTD. Cozenspower play(T. Stützle, J. Sanderson)5–2
3rdshots 9–13no goals

    score reads OTT–TOR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.90
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.021
    OTT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    63.2%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.90Expected goals3.09
    OTT 56% of the chance quality
    40Shots on goal23
    3High-danger chances6
    74All attempts (Corsi)43
    Adjusted for score: OTT 59% · TOR 41%
    Faceoffs · TOR won53%off36%neu63%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    OTT0 / 3 · 0.73 xG
    TOR1 / 6 · 1.78 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    OTT4 / 21 · 2.14 xG
    TOR1 / 5 · 0.70 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    OTT1 / 50 · 1.03 xG
    TOR0 / 32 · 0.61 xG

    OTT went 4-for-21 from medium danger on 2.14 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    OTT
    5 G · 3.90 xG · +1.1
    TOR
    2 G · 3.09 xG · -1.1
    0123456

    OTT finished +1.1 against expected, TOR -1.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    OTT
    WRIST5/40
    SNAP0/8
    SLAP0/5
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BETWEEN LEGS0/0
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/15
    TOR
    WRIST1/24
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BETWEEN LEGS0/1
    POKE1/1
    OTHER0/6
    OTT
    TOR
    Off the rush
    4 G on 36
    2.66 xG
    1 G on 19
    1.37 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 6
    0.64 xG
    1 G on 7
    1.57 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 5-for-40, TOR 1-for-24. OTT scored 4 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
    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 21/23 · .913
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.8+0.8
    Medium1/50.7-0.3
    Low0/320.6+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

    A. Stolarz
    TOR · 12/12 · 1.000
    +3.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium4/212.1-1.9
    Low1/501.0+0.0

    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 · 23/28 · .821
    -1.1
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium4/212.1-1.9
    Low1/501.0+0.0

    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

    96 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    OTT
    59 shots
    5
    Final
    96 shots
    TOR
    37 shots
    2
    OTT attackTOR attack
    OTT TOR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
    D. Cozens
    #24 · C · OTT
    2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 16:23 on ice · +1
    T. Chabot
    #72 · D · OTT
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:54 on ice · +2
    D. Batherson
    #19 · R · OTT
    2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 17:46 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Feb 28
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:50 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

    Ottawa owns this matchup on the underlying play. The model projects a 2.7–2.3 Senators win with 57% win probability, built on territorial dominance: 56.0% expected goals at 5v5 versus Toronto's 46.0%, and 53.0% Corsi to the Leafs' 45.0%. This is the difference between a team controlling play and one consistently pushed around.

    Form matters here too. Ottawa has gone 6-3-1 over their last 10, while Toronto sits at -13 goal differential in that same span — a team treading water. The Senators' momentum is real; the Leafs' isn't.

    Toronto's PDO sits slightly above 1.002, suggesting positive variance in luck, while Ottawa's 0.993 indicates neutral-to-slightly-negative luck. When models favor a team, the gap between expected play and actual outcomes sharpens the edge.

    Brady Tkachuk is Ottawa's primary offensive threat. At 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes, he's generated 11 goals and 20 assists with 2 high-danger goals and a 7.5% shooting percentage. Toronto must account for him constantly. Dylan Cozens provides secondary firepower: 1.00 xG/60, 13 goals, 15 assists, and a 9.5% shot percentage.

    Toronto counters with Auston Matthews (1.10 xG/60, 17 goals, 13 assists, 1 high-danger goal) and John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15 goals, 24 assists, 3 high-danger goals). Matthews is the most dangerous individual weapon on either roster; Tavares is the steadier, deeper scorer.

    Both teams face goaltending questions. J. Woll works on a back-to-back for Toronto, suggesting either a backup appearance or a fatigued starter. L. Ullmark faces identical circumstances for Ottawa. Both clubs should prepare for rotational play or diminished performance.

    Defensively, Nick Jensen represents Ottawa's pressure point, while Bo Groulx occupies the same role for Toronto. These are the spots where opposing forwards should hunt.

    The model's lean is clear: Ottawa controls play across every volume metric and has recent form to match it. Toronto's skill at forward compensates only partially for territorial disadvantage. The Senators' 57% win probability reflects what the numbers show — a team that should win this one.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 57%
    57%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    57%
    43%
    OTT50TOR

    OTT by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.7–2.3 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
    OTT← edge
    edge →TOR
    56.0%46.0%
    53.0%45.0%
    2.662.24
    2.122.67
    2.182.09
    1.992.52
    0.9931.002

    OTT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 1.002) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    OTT
    6-3-1
    +10 GD · 1d rest
    TOR
    3-6-1
    -13 GD · 1d rest
    0.993
    OTT 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 Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • J. Woll is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • L. Ullmark is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Senators are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
    • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Ullmark
    back-to-back.900 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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.

    TOR
    Expected in goal
    J. Woll
    back-to-back.914 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
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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