Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
← Tue, Mar 24 · the slate
Breakdown · TOR at BOS

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

FinalTue, Mar 24
TORToronto Maple Leafs4BOSBoston Bruins2
The verdict · earned

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

TOR 4 · BOS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:34 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

Goaltending was irrelevant: J. Swayman posted a 0.912 save percentage (+3.95 above expected), yet Boston lost 4-2. When the Maple Leafs controlled this completely—66% of 5v5 expected goals (6.95 to 3.54)—no save percentage is large enough to matter.

Toronto's quality advantage was decisive. The Maple Leafs registered 13 high-danger chances to Boston's 5, with each shot carrying greater threat (0.118 expected goals per attempt versus 0.072). The Bruins managed zero conversions on their high-danger looks. Their execution elsewhere was marginal: two goals on 28 rush chances, four rebound attempts at net-front. None of it moved the margin.

Toronto underperformed their expected goals by 2.95 (four actual goals against 6.95 expected), yet their underlying dominance was so complete that failure to fully execute still delivered a rout. A. Stolarz responded with 18 saves on 20 shots (0.900 SV%, +1.54), capable rather than spectacular.

M. Knies's goal 19:38 into the third—a poke from the doorstep—extended Toronto's lead to separation the Bruins never threatened to close. From that sequence, the underlying gap was simply too wide.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 24
TOR
4
BOS
2

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

Chances 7.0 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Maple Leafs earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
6.95
BOS
3.54
66% of the chances34%

The board read TOR 4, BOS 2. The chances read TOR 7.0, BOS 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
−3.0
goals above expected
TOR6.95 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS3.54 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Bruins left 1.5 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. P1 05:04BOSE. Lindholm0–1
  2. P2 07:27TORM. KniesSH1–1
  3. P2 18:08TORM. DomiPP2–1
  4. P3 03:00TORW. Nylander3–1
  5. P3 05:08BOSC. McAvoyPP3–2
  6. P3 19:38TORM. KniesEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
53 shots
4
Final
93 shots
BOS
40 shots
2
TOR attackBOS attack
TOR BOS Goal
53
shots · 4 in
40
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORBOS
2 / 13
4.01 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.34 xG
1 / 20
2.36 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.58 xG
1 / 26
0.58 xG
Low
1 / 29
0.62 xG

The Bruins went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Swayman
+4.0
BOS · 31/34
A
A. Stolarz
+1.5
TOR · 18/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs run the Bruins 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 9–5
  1. 05:04BOSE. Lindholm(M. Geekie, H. Jokiharju)0–1
2ndshots 13–8
  1. 07:27TORM. Kniesshorthanded1–1
  2. 18:08TORM. Domipower play(J. Tavares, O. Ekman-Larsson)2–1
3rdshots 13–7
  1. 03:00TORW. Nylander(J. Tavares, J. McCabe)3–1
  2. 05:08BOSC. McAvoypower play(D. Pastrnak, P. Zacha)3–2
  3. 19:38TORM. Kniesempty net(W. Nylander, J. Tavares)4–2

score reads TOR–BOS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.95
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
−3.0
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.027
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

6.95Expected goals3.54
TOR 66% of the chance quality
35Shots on goal20
13High-danger chances5
59All attempts (Corsi)49
Adjusted for score: TOR 54% · BOS 46%
Faceoffs · BOS won62%off67%neu67%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TOR2 / 13 · 4.01 xG
BOS0 / 5 · 1.34 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TOR1 / 20 · 2.36 xG
BOS1 / 15 · 1.58 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TOR1 / 26 · 0.58 xG
BOS1 / 29 · 0.62 xG

TOR went 2-for-13 from high danger on 4.01 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TOR
4 G · 6.95 xG · -3.0
BOS
2 G · 3.54 xG · -1.5
012345678

TOR finished -3.0 against expected, BOS -1.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TOR
SNAP1/29
WRIST1/9
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND1/4
BAT0/1
POKE1/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/6
BOS
SNAP0/9
WRIST1/14
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/7
BACKHAND0/2
BAT0/0
POKE0/0
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/9
TOR
BOS
Off the rush
3 G on 35
4.25 xG
2 G on 28
2.54 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 5
1.12 xG
0 G on 4
0.59 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TOR went 1-for-29, BOS 0-for-9. 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 · 18/20 · .900
+1.5
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.3+1.3
Medium1/151.6+0.6
Low1/290.6-0.4

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

J. Swayman
BOS · 31/34 · .912
+4.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/134.0+2.0
Medium1/202.4+1.4
Low1/260.6-0.4

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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TOR
53 shots
4
Final
93 shots
BOS
40 shots
2
TOR attackBOS attack
TOR BOS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, BOS 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
J. Tavares
#91 · C · TOR
0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 19:30 on ice
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 21:53 on ice
M. Knies
#23 · L · TOR
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 18:21 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 24
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:32 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 2.5 - 2.7 goal game with the Bruins at 54% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as projections yield.

Boston enters this matchup hot. The Bruins sit 5-2-3 over their last 10 games, while Toronto has stalled at -13 goal differential in the same window. More tellingly, Boston controls territory: a 49.0% Corsi edge over Toronto's 45.0% means the Bruins will spend more time attacking.

The underlying metrics barely separate these teams at 5v5. Boston's expected goals share is 47.0% to Toronto's 46.0%—nearly a dead heat. But Boston's PDO of 1.023 suggests they're running hot in terms of shot luck; expect some regression. Toronto's 1.002 is more sustainable.

Auston Matthews is Toronto's engine: 1.10 expected goals per 60, 17 goals, 13 assists, shooting at 10.6%. John Tavares provides secondary scoring at 0.91 xG/60, with 15 goals and 24 assists at a 12.4% clip. Boston counters with Viktor Arvidsson generating 1.04 xG/60 and posting 18 goals and 24 assists. Tanner Jeannot supports at 0.75 xG/60 with 6 goals and 14 assists.

The critical wrinkle: Matthews hasn't played in 12 days and is likely unavailable. Remove Toronto's best scorer, and Boston's territorial and underlying advantage tips this from a coin flip into clear Bruins territory.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BOS 54%
54%
BOS
Model favorite
46%
54%
TOR50BOS

BOS by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.5–2.7 BOS; 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 →BOS
46.0%47.0%
45.0%49.0%
2.242.39
2.672.67
2.092.22
2.521.82
1.0021.023

BOS holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.023) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TOR
2-5-3
-13 GD · 3d rest
BOS
5-2-3
+3 GD · 2d rest
1.002
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.023
BOS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Bruins drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Bruins drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Bruins are the hotter team by points pace (5-2-3 in their last 10).
  • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TOR
Expected in goal
J. Woll
3 days rest.886 last start
Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BOS
Expected in goal
J. Swayman
2 days rest.955 last start
Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 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
BOS
Viktor Arvidsson18G 24A
1.04 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
Tanner Jeannot6G 14A
0.75 xG/60 · 2 HD · 8.3% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page