Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
← Sun, Mar 15 · the slate
Breakdown · TOR at MIN

A. Stolarz stands tall as the Maple Leafs edge the Wild

FinalSun, Mar 15
TORToronto Maple Leafs4MINMinnesota Wild2
The verdict · stolen

The Maple Leafs stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.55–5.34 and won anyway.

TOR 4 · MIN 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:11 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' 4-2 win was built on one anomaly: they controlled just 32% of expected goals against Minnesota's 68% dominance. This was a steal.

Minnesota commanded the underlying metrics. The Wild held 59% of shot attempts (38–26 on goal) and generated 9 high-danger chances to Toronto's 3. In expected goals, Minnesota led 5.34–2.55, a gap that typically spells doom for the Leafs. A. Stolarz's 0.947 save percentage and +3.34 expected-performance margin rewrote the narrative. J. Wallstedt (0.880 SV%) offered no parallel response.

The turning point came in the third period when Matthew Knies's wrist shot from the wing at 19:23 marked a momentum shift. Toronto's efficiency, not volume, won the game. The Leafs scored 3 rush goals on 20 rush attempts while Minnesota managed 2 on 40 chances. Toronto also scored twice from low-danger areas—chances an opposing goalie should stop.

Minnesota underperformed its xG by 3.34 goals, wasting prime opportunities. Toronto overperformed by 1.45, making cheap chances count. For the Wild, dominance without execution was meaningless.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 15
TOR
4
MIN
2

A. Stolarz stands tall as the Maple Leafs edge the Wild

Chances 2.5 – 5.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
2.55
MIN
5.34
32% of the chances68%

The board read TOR 4, MIN 2. The chances read TOR 2.5, MIN 5.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+1.4
goals above expected
TOR2.55 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MIN5.34 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Wild left 3.3 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 01:07TORM. Rielly1–0
  2. P2 02:19TORB. Groulx2–0
  3. P2 08:18TORB. Groulx3–0
  4. P3 04:51MINV. Tarasenko3–1
  5. P3 05:14MINV. Tarasenko3–2
  6. P3 19:23TORM. KniesEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
35 shots
4
Final
93 shots
MIN
58 shots
2
TOR attackMIN attack
TOR MIN Goal
35
shots · 4 in
58
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORMIN
1 / 3
0.84 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.64 xG
1 / 9
1.04 xG
Medium
1 / 20
2.08 xG
2 / 36
0.66 xG
Low
0 / 61
0.61 xG

High-danger looks: TOR 1 of 3, MIN 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Stolarz
+3.3
TOR · 36/38
D
J. Wallstedt
−0.5
MIN · 22/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Stolarz stands tall as the Maple Leafs edge the Wild

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 5–10no goals
    2ndshots 16–11
    1. 01:07TORM. Rielly(M. Maccelli, J. Tavares)1–0
    2. 02:19TORB. Groulx(T. Stecher, N. Robertson)2–0
    3. 08:18TORB. Groulx3–0
    3rdshots 5–17
    1. 04:51MINV. Tarasenko(M. Zuccarello, R. Hartman)3–1
    2. 05:14MINV. Tarasenko(R. Hartman, M. Zuccarello)3–2
    3. 19:23TORM. Kniesempty net4–2

    score reads TOR–MIN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.55
    TOR chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.4
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.061
    TOR puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    34.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.55Expected goals5.34
    MIN 68% of the chance quality
    26Shots on goal38
    3High-danger chances9
    48All attempts (Corsi)90
    Adjusted for score: TOR 31% · MIN 69%
    Faceoffs · MIN won56%off41%neu46%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TOR1 / 3 · 0.84 xG
    MIN1 / 9 · 2.64 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TOR1 / 9 · 1.04 xG
    MIN1 / 20 · 2.08 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TOR2 / 36 · 0.66 xG
    MIN0 / 61 · 0.61 xG

    MIN went 1-for-9 from high danger on 2.64 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TOR
    4 G · 2.55 xG · +1.4
    MIN
    2 G · 5.34 xG · -3.3
    0123456

    TOR finished +1.4 against expected, MIN -3.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TOR
    WRIST3/23
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/1
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/4
    DEFLECTED1/1
    OTHER0/13
    MIN
    WRIST1/36
    SNAP1/7
    SLAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/32
    TOR
    MIN
    Off the rush
    3 G on 20
    1.18 xG
    2 G on 40
    4.51 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.51 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.50 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 3-for-23, MIN 1-for-36. 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 · 36/38 · .947
    +3.3
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/92.6+1.6
    Medium1/202.1+1.1
    Low0/610.6+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

    J. Wallstedt
    MIN · 22/25 · .880
    -0.5
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.8-0.2
    Medium1/91.0+0.0
    Low2/360.7-1.3

    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

    93 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TOR
    35 shots
    4
    Final
    93 shots
    MIN
    58 shots
    2
    TOR attackMIN attack
    TOR MIN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, MIN 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. Zuccarello
    #36 · R · MIN
    0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 21:35 on ice · +1
    B. Groulx
    #29 · C · TOR
    2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 17:03 on ice · +2
    V. Tarasenko
    #91 · R · MIN
    2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 16:55 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Mar 15
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:23 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

    Minnesota's expected-goals models favor the Wild, projecting a 2.3–2.7 game with 57% win probability. Toronto's underlying numbers don't argue.

    Start with the season-long 5v5 picture. Minnesota's 52.0% expected goals share against Toronto's 46.0% isn't marginal — it reflects systematic control. Corsi backs it (48.0% to 45.0%), suggesting Minnesota generates more shots from favorable positions. PDO (shot quality adjusted), nearly identical at 1.007 to 1.002, means neither team is riding unsustainable luck.

    Recent form tilts further Minnesota's way. The Wild are 5-3-2 over their last ten games — a pace that compounds through a season. Toronto sits at -19 goal differential over the same stretch, a sign that last-ten results understate the underlying gap.

    The matchup hinges on edge players. Auston Matthews carries Toronto's offense at 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes with 17 goals and 10.6% shooting efficiency. John Tavares adds 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals, but his 12.4% shooting rate suggests he's benefited from variance. Matt Boldy leads Minnesota at 0.89 xG/60 with 22 goals — a high-volume scorer who's also shot 13.7%, indicating some regression risk. Robby Fabbri (0.88 xG/60) figures as a secondary threat, though he's likely out.

    Both goaltenders face back-to-back games. F. Gustavsson and J. Woll could see reduced minutes or fatigue in regulation. Minnesota's model edge vanishes quickly if Toronto steals goaltending performance.

    The tactical gap is simpler than the advanced stats suggest. Toronto has generated 0% of its goals from high-danger areas and 0% from rebounds — a pair of zeros that smell like assignment definitions rather than actual play. Minnesota's 0% figures in both categories tell the same story. What matters: Minnesota's defense weak link (Matt Kiersted) ranks below Toronto's (Bo Groulx) in the eye test, a minor advantage that disappears if either team gets caught defensively.

    The model leans Minnesota because it plays the game at a better pace, converts chances at a reasonable rate for its volume, and faces an opponent threading water. Toronto's -19 is not a referendum on talent — more a reminder that recent trends matter. If this game plays within its projected range (2.3–2.7 goals for Minnesota, with Minnesota as a 57% proposition), the Wild cover as favorites.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    MIN 57%
    57%
    MIN
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    TOR50MIN

    MIN by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.3–2.7 MIN; 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 →MIN
    46.0%52.0%
    45.0%48.0%
    2.242.55
    2.672.40
    2.092.04
    2.521.93
    1.0021.007

    MIN holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.007) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    TOR
    1-6-3
    -19 GD · 1d rest
    MIN
    5-3-2
    +6 GD · 1d rest
    1.002
    TOR PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.007
    MIN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Wild own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    • F. Gustavsson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • J. Woll is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Wild are the hotter team by points pace (5-3-2 in their last 10).
    • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -19 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    TOR
    Expected in goal
    J. Woll
    back-to-back.939 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.

    MIN
    Expected in goal
    F. Gustavsson
    back-to-back.778 last start
    Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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
    MIN
    Matt Boldy22G 18A
    0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Robby Fabbri2G 3A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page