Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater
Breakdown · TOR at NJD

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

The verdict · earned

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

TOR 3 · NJD 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:33 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

A. Stolarz stole this one for Toronto. New Jersey dominated 5v5 play—62% of expected goals (5.93–3.59), 64% of shot attempts (47–27)—yet the Devils' 4-3 shootout victory barely reflects their control. Toronto's goaltender saved 2.93 goals above expected, compressing what should have been a comfortable margin.

Prime chances went to the right team. High-danger opportunities favored New Jersey 12–4, a three-to-one advantage that should have translated to goals. Instead, they underperformed their xG by 1.93 goals, leaving conversions unfinished. That gap nearly cost them the win.

Stolarz was the story. His 0.936 save percentage across 44 saves, including a 92% clip on high-danger attempts, represented the kind of goaltending that steals games. J. Markstrom faced half the volume (24 saves, 0.889 SV%), a byproduct of dominance.

Both teams thrived in transition. New Jersey's pressure showed in the net-crashing department—8 rebound opportunities created, none converted—evidence of relentless offensive pursuit. Toronto mustered 4 rebound chances (1 converted) as New Jersey suffocated play. When Jesper Bratt's backhander from the doorstep ended the shootout, it capped a game decided by New Jersey's control and one goaltender's refusal to quit.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Mar 4
TOR
3
NJD
4

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

Chances 3.6 – 5.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Devils earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
3.59
NJD
5.93
38% of the chances62%

The board read TOR 3, NJD 4. The chances read TOR 3.6, NJD 5.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NJD
−1.9
goals above expected
NJD5.93 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR3.59 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 05:26TORM. Maccelli1–0
  2. P1 07:55NJDT. Meier1–1
  3. P2 03:20TORW. NylanderPP2–1
  4. P2 06:06NJDA. Gritsyuk2–2
  5. P3 13:50TORM. Knies3–2
  6. P3 17:39NJDC. Brown3–3
  7. SO 00:00NJDP. CotterPP3–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
42 shots
3
Final
112 shots
NJD
70 shots
5
TOR attackNJD attack
TOR NJD Goal

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

42
shots · 3 in
70
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORNJD
0 / 4
0.93 xG
High danger
1 / 12
2.74 xG
3 / 21
2.30 xG
Medium
2 / 23
2.34 xG
0 / 26
0.37 xG
Low
0 / 47
0.85 xG

The Maple Leafs went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Stolarz
+2.9
TOR · 44/47
B
J. Markstrom
+0.6
NJD · 24/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Devils run the Maple Leafs 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 11–14
  1. 05:26TORM. Maccelli(D. Joshua, S. Benoit)1–0
  2. 07:55NJDT. Meier(N. Hischier, D. Mercer)1–1
2ndshots 9–16
  1. 03:20TORW. Nylanderpower play(E. Cowan, A. Matthews)2–1
  2. 06:06NJDA. Gritsyuk(J. Bratt, N. Hischier)2–2
3rdshots 5–14
  1. 13:50TORM. Knies(J. Tavares, T. Stecher)3–2
  2. 17:39NJDC. Brown(A. Gritsyuk, L. Hughes)3–3
OTshots 2–3no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00NJDP. Cotterpower play3–3
    2. 00:00NJDJ. Brattpower play3–3

    score reads TOR–NJD

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.93
    NJD chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.9
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.978
    NJD puck luck
    Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
    61.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.59Expected goals5.93
    NJD 62% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal47
    4High-danger chances12
    51All attempts (Corsi)82
    Adjusted for score: TOR 38% · NJD 62%
    Faceoffs · NJD won55%off50%neu39%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TOR0 / 4 · 0.93 xG
    NJD1 / 12 · 2.74 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TOR3 / 21 · 2.30 xG
    NJD2 / 23 · 2.34 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TOR0 / 26 · 0.37 xG
    NJD0 / 47 · 0.85 xG

    NJD went 1-for-12 from high danger on 2.74 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TOR
    3 G · 3.59 xG · -0.6
    NJD
    4 G · 5.93 xG · -1.9
    01234567

    TOR finished -0.6 against expected, NJD -1.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TOR
    WRIST1/25
    BACKHAND0/6
    SNAP0/1
    TIP IN0/2
    SLAP0/4
    DEFLECTED1/1
    BAT1/1
    POKE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/11
    NJD
    WRIST2/38
    BACKHAND0/6
    SNAP1/10
    TIP IN0/6
    SLAP0/3
    DEFLECTED0/3
    BAT0/0
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/14
    TOR
    NJD
    Off the rush
    2 G on 26
    2.62 xG
    3 G on 36
    3.82 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 4
    0.43 xG
    0 G on 8
    0.94 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 1-for-25, NJD 2-for-38. NJD 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 · 44/47 · .936
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/122.7+1.7
    Medium2/232.3+0.3
    Low0/470.8+0.8

    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. Markstrom
    NJD · 24/27 · .889
    +0.6
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium3/212.3-0.7
    Low0/260.4+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

    112 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TOR
    42 shots
    3
    Final
    112 shots
    NJD
    70 shots
    5
    TOR attackNJD attack
    TOR NJD Goal

    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, NJD 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
    N. Hischier
    #13 · C · NJD
    0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 24:17 on ice · +1
    A. Gritsyuk
    #81 · R · NJD
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:04 on ice · +1
    A. Matthews
    #34 · C · TOR
    0 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 24:57 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Mar 4
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:31 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 favors New Jersey at 56% win probability, projecting a final score in the 2.4-to-2.7-goal range for the Devils.

    The edge lives in possession and shot quality. New Jersey controls play at 50.0% 5v5 expected goals and 51.0% Corsi, while Toronto manages just 46.0% xG and 45.0% Corsi. The Devils are the better team — they're simply generating more dangerous looks and pushing opponents around the ice.

    What makes this lean sharper: New Jersey's PDO sits at 0.971, a cold-running indicator of goaltending and finish variance that tends to normalize upward. Toronto, meanwhile, has drifted to 1.002, meaning its actual results have tracked close to underlying performance. When PDO regresses, it usually regresses down for teams running lucky — the Devils are primed to regress up. That's a hidden tailwind into this matchup.

    The recent form counts against both squads. The Devils are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10 games; the Maple Leafs sit at -13. Neither team is playing well right now. What separates them is that New Jersey's poor results mask decent underlying play, while Toronto's underlying metrics have been weak. The Devils look due for correction.

    One more layer: the rest advantage. New Jersey enters on four days off; Toronto on one. After a slump, the Devils' extra recovery time becomes valuable — they can execute the system they've built, which their possession numbers suggest works when they're sharp.

    There's a complication in the crease. A. Stolarz backs up New Jersey's defense on a back-to-back situation, creating the possibility of a tired starter or a surprise backup deployment. That's a variable to monitor as puck drop approaches.

    For Toronto, Auston Matthews carries the offensive load at 1.10 xG per 60 minutes with 17 goals and a 10.6% shooting rate. John Tavares contributes at 0.91 xG/60 with three hard-chance goals this season.

    New Jersey centers on Timo Meier, generating 1.08 xG per 60 with three hard-chance goals, and Jack Hughes, who's posted 18 goals despite a 0.88 xG rate. Hughes at 11.5% shooting is running hot relative to his underlying production — regression could matter there.

    Toronto's Bo Groulx is the defensive weak link; Johnathan Kovacevic occupies that role for New Jersey. Those vulnerabilities matter when margins are thin.

    The model sees Devils by a goal or so, backed by possession and pending PDO correction.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    NJD 56%
    55%
    NJD
    Model favorite
    45%
    55%
    TOR50NJD

    NJD by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.4–2.7 NJD; 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 →NJD
    46.0%50.0%
    45.0%51.0%
    2.242.45
    2.672.50
    2.091.66
    2.522.23
    1.0020.971

    NJD holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.971) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    TOR
    3-6-1
    -13 GD · 1d rest
    NJD
    3-7-0
    -11 GD · 4d rest
    1.002
    TOR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.971
    NJD PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Devils own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    • The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Devils own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    • The Devils drive Corsi at 51.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • A. Stolarz is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Devils are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Devils have 3 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    TOR
    Expected in goal
    A. Stolarz
    back-to-back.920 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.

    NJD
    Expected in goal
    J. Markstrom
    4 days rest.962 last start
    Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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
    NJD
    Timo Meier13G 15A
    1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
    Jack Hughes18G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next