Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
← Sat, Mar 14 · the slate
Breakdown · TOR at BUF

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

Final / OTSat, Mar 14
TORToronto Maple Leafs2BUFBuffalo Sabres3
The verdict · earned

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

TOR 2 · BUF 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:05 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

Buffalo dominated on expected goals—5.40 to 1.95—meaning the Sabres generated vastly more dangerous chances. The 73–27 split reveals the chasm. The 3–2 shootout result was not representative.

The numbers confirm the gap. Buffalo held 65% of shot attempts (33–18 on goal), controlling where shots came from. Eight high-danger chances to Toronto's three amplified the disparity—not just volume, but quality. At 0.067 expected goals per shot, Buffalo was precise. Toronto's 0.051 rate meant survival required near-perfection. It didn't come.

Variance worked against Buffalo, then against Toronto. The Sabres underperformed their expected goals by 2.40, converting zero of eight high-danger chances—a squandered advantage. J. Woll (TOR) stole the show: 0.939 save percentage, 3.40 goals above expected, 31 saves on 33 shots. He stopped all eight high-danger attempts. A. Lyon (BUF) saved 16 of 18 and had no margin for error.

Rush play proved decisive. Buffalo scored twice on 35 rush chances. Toronto scored twice on 21, a higher rate that kept the Maple Leafs within a goal despite the underlying domination.

Alex Tuch's wrist shot from the doorstep in the shootout ended it—a finish earned by Buffalo's control. O. Power (BUF) logged 23:50 with a goal, anchoring the dominance. W. Nylander (TOR) and M. Knies (TOR) each assisted in roughly 20 minutes, their efforts insufficient against the gap.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Mar 14
TOR
2
BUF
3

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

Chances 1.9 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
1.95
BUF
5.40
27% of the chances73%

The board read TOR 2, BUF 3. The chances read TOR 1.9, BUF 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
−2.4
goals above expected
BUF5.40 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR1.95 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 02:01BUFO. Power0–1
  2. P1 06:09TORD. Joshua1–1
  3. P2 00:53TORM. Domi2–1
  4. P2 11:21BUFJ. QuinnPP2–2
  5. SO 00:00BUFJ. QuinnPP2–2
  6. SO 00:00BUFA. TuchPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
30 shots
2
Final
90 shots
BUF
60 shots
4
TOR attackBUF attack
TOR BUF Goal

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

30
shots · 2 in
60
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORBUF
0 / 3
0.76 xG
High danger
0 / 8
1.95 xG
1 / 8
0.81 xG
Medium
1 / 23
2.74 xG
1 / 27
0.38 xG
Low
1 / 50
0.70 xG

The Maple Leafs went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Woll
+3.4
TOR · 31/33
C
A. Lyon
−0.1
BUF · 16/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres 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 9–10
  1. 02:01BUFO. Power(Z. Benson, S. Carrick)0–1
  2. 06:09TORD. Joshua(N. Robertson)1–1
2ndshots 6–12
  1. 00:53TORM. Domi(W. Nylander, M. Knies)2–1
  2. 11:21BUFJ. Quinnpower play(N. Ostlund, R. McLeod)2–2
3rdshots 2–10no goals
    OTshots 1–1no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00BUFJ. Quinnpower play2–2
      2. 00:00BUFA. Tuchpower play2–2

      score reads TOR–BUF

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      5.40
      BUF chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −2.4
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      0.972
      BUF puck luck
      Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
      68.1%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      1.95Expected goals5.40
      BUF 73% of the chance quality
      18Shots on goal33
      3High-danger chances8
      38All attempts (Corsi)81
      Adjusted for score: TOR 31% · BUF 69%
      Faceoffs · BUF won60%off50%neu35%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      TOR0 / 3 · 0.76 xG
      BUF0 / 8 · 1.95 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      TOR1 / 8 · 0.81 xG
      BUF1 / 23 · 2.74 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      TOR1 / 27 · 0.38 xG
      BUF1 / 50 · 0.70 xG

      BUF went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.95 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      TOR
      2 G · 1.95 xG · +0.1
      BUF
      3 G · 5.40 xG · -2.4
      0123456

      TOR finished +0.1 against expected, BUF -2.4.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      TOR
      SNAP1/8
      WRIST1/10
      SLAP0/3
      TIP IN0/3
      BACKHAND0/3
      POKE0/1
      OTHER0/10
      BUF
      SNAP0/23
      WRIST2/14
      SLAP0/9
      TIP IN0/7
      BACKHAND0/4
      POKE0/0
      OTHER0/24
      TOR
      BUF
      Off the rush
      2 G on 21
      1.83 xG
      2 G on 35
      4.01 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 1
      0.05 xG
      0 G on 4
      0.52 xG

      Snap shots carried the volume: TOR went 1-for-8, BUF 0-for-23. 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 · 31/33 · .939
      +3.4
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/81.9+1.9
      Medium1/232.7+1.7
      Low1/500.7-0.3

      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. Lyon
      BUF · 16/18 · .889
      -0.1
      saved above expected
      C
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.8+0.8
      Medium1/80.8-0.2
      Low1/270.4-0.6

      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

      90 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      TOR
      30 shots
      2
      Final
      90 shots
      BUF
      60 shots
      4
      TOR attackBUF attack
      TOR BUF 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, BUF 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. Power
      #25 · D · BUF
      1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 23:50 on ice · +1
      W. Nylander
      #88 · R · TOR
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:18 on ice
      M. Knies
      #23 · L · TOR
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 20:09 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Mar 14
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:03 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 2.4–2.7 goal game with Buffalo at 56% win probability.

      Buffalo's advantage flows from process. The Sabres control 50.0% of expected goals at 5v5 and 49.0% of Corsi, dictating territorial play. Toronto manages only 46.0% xG and 45.0% Corsi, a possession deficit that typically correlates with losses.

      But the Sabres' PDO is 1.020—inflated luck that usually corrects downward. Toronto's 1.002 sits neutral. Buffalo has accumulated variance they're likely to shed, which compresses their theoretical edge in a close matchup.

      Auston Matthews is Toronto's primary weapon: 1.10 xG/60, 17 goals, 13 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 10.6% shooting. John Tavares adds secondary scoring at 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals, 24 assists, 3 high-danger goals, and 12.4% shooting.

      Jason Zucker leads Buffalo's offense at 1.07 xG/60, 14 goals, 14 assists, 6 high-danger goals, and 15.1% shooting. That high-danger goal total stands out—Zucker is converting prime chances at an exceptional rate. Josh Doan contributes 1.01 xG/60 with 15 goals, 18 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and 11.5% shooting.

      Defensively, both teams show zero high-danger and zero rebound goals in these metrics, suggesting either structured defense or a narrow sample. Toronto's defensive weak link is Bo Groulx; Buffalo's is Jack Quinn. Neither is profound, but each offers a matchup target.

      The central issue: Buffalo dominates territory while running hot on PDO. The 56% lean assumes their process sustains while Toronto's efficiency regresses. If PDO corrects and Matthews remains dangerous, the gap narrows. If the Sabres hold territorial control, they win the 2.4–2.7 game. Toronto isn't a lock to lose—they're an underdog in a matchup decided by whether Buffalo keeps their edge or luck does the work.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      BUF 56%
      56%
      BUF
      Model favorite
      44%
      56%
      TOR50BUF

      BUF by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.4–2.7 BUF; 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 →BUF
      46.0%50.0%
      45.0%49.0%
      2.242.55
      2.672.55
      2.092.35
      2.521.90
      1.0021.020

      BUF holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · No games yet
      TOR
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      BUF
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      1.002
      TOR PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.020
      BUF PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Sabres own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
      • The Sabres drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Sabres own the underlying play — 50.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
      • The Sabres drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
      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
      BUF
      Jason Zucker14G 14A
      1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh
      Josh Doan15G 18A
      1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page