Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater
Breakdown · MTL at NSH

Canadiens pull away from the Predators

The verdict · earned

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

MTL 4 · NSH 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:21 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

Montreal's 4–1 victory masked a fundamental imbalance in conversion. The teams generated equal high-danger chances (four each), but the Canadiens converted all four while Nashville scored once. Montreal controlled 57% of 5v5 expected goals (3.85–2.88) and 57% of shot attempts (32–24)—numbers that aligned with the scoreline in direction but not magnitude.

Variance explained the gap. The Predators underperformed their expected goals by 1.88 goals, a deficit that transformed a narrowly competitive contest into a rout. J. Fowler (MTL) saved 1.88 goals above expected on 23 of 24 shots (0.958 SV%), while J. Saros (NSH) finished with 28 of 32 saves (0.875 SV%).

Montreal's efficiency extended beyond goaltending. The Canadiens scored two goals on 34 rush attempts—a conversion rate that exposed Nashville's defensive vulnerabilities. Zachary L'Heureux's wrist shot from the slot at 16:26 of the third period marked the turning point.

N. Suzuki orchestrated the attack, posting two assists in 18:53 of ice time. I. Demidov (1G, 1A, 16:11) and O. Kapanen (1G, 1A, 16:05) proved the scoring depth extended beyond the top line.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 28
MTL
4
NSH
1

Canadiens pull away from the Predators

Chances 3.9 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
3.85
NSH
2.88
57% of the chances43%

The board read MTL 4, NSH 1. The chances read MTL 3.9, NSH 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MTL
+0.1
goals above expected
MTL3.85 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH2.88 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Predators left 1.9 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 11:34MTLI. Demidov1–0
  2. P2 03:12MTLO. Kapanen2–0
  3. P2 14:45MTLC. Caufield3–0
  4. P2 16:23MTLA. Newhook4–0
  5. P3 16:26NSHZ. L'Heureux4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
48 shots
4
Final
85 shots
NSH
37 shots
1
MTL attackNSH attack
MTL NSH Goal
48
shots · 4 in
37
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLNSH
0 / 4
1.02 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.00 xG
3 / 21
2.35 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.44 xG
1 / 32
0.48 xG
Low
0 / 36
0.44 xG

High-danger looks: MTL 0 of 4, NSH 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Fowler
+1.9
MTL · 23/24
C
J. Saros
−0.1
NSH · 28/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canadiens pull away from the Predators

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 9–3
  1. 11:34MTLI. Demidov(N. Suzuki)1–0
2ndshots 14–12
  1. 03:12MTLO. Kapanen(A. Newhook, L. Hutson)2–0
  2. 14:45MTLC. Caufield(N. Suzuki)3–0
  3. 16:23MTLA. Newhook(I. Demidov, O. Kapanen)4–0
3rdshots 9–9
  1. 16:26NSHZ. L'Heureux(R. Ufko, M. Wood)4–1

score reads MTL–NSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.85
MTL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.052
MTL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
51.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.85Expected goals2.88
MTL 57% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal24
4High-danger chances4
57All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: MTL 46% · NSH 54%
Faceoffs · NSH won56%off35%neu60%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL0 / 4 · 1.02 xG
NSH1 / 4 · 1.00 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL3 / 21 · 2.35 xG
NSH0 / 14 · 1.44 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL1 / 32 · 0.48 xG
NSH0 / 36 · 0.44 xG

NSH went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.44 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
4 G · 3.85 xG · +0.1
NSH
1 G · 2.88 xG · -1.9
012345

MTL finished +0.1 against expected, NSH -1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
WRIST4/27
SNAP0/13
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
NSH
WRIST1/19
SNAP0/7
BACKHAND0/5
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/2
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/17
MTL
NSH
Off the rush
2 G on 34
3.21 xG
1 G on 27
2.17 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.24 xG
0 G on 2
0.34 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 4-for-27, NSH 1-for-19. MTL 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. Fowler
MTL · 23/24 · .958
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.0+0.0
Medium0/141.4+1.4
Low0/360.4+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

J. Saros
NSH · 28/32 · .875
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium3/212.4-0.7
Low1/320.5-0.5

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
48 shots
4
Final
85 shots
NSH
37 shots
1
MTL attackNSH attack
MTL NSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL left, NSH 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. Suzuki
#14 · C · MTL
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 18:53 on ice · +1
I. Demidov
#93 · R · MTL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:11 on ice · +3
O. Kapanen
#91 · C · MTL
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 16:05 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

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

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:20 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 projection is damning in its indifference: Montreal at 2.5–2.7 expected goals, Nashville at 53% win probability. This is as close to an even split as the model will produce.

The underlying metrics explain why. Montreal owns 48.0% expected goal share against Nashville's 49.0%—a difference you could miss mid-sip. Corsi splits are nearly identical: 49.0% for the Canadiens, 50.0% for the Predators. Neither team has seized control. Neither team has surrendered it.

But layers matter. Montreal's PDO sits at 1.018—a sign the puck is bouncing their way more often than hockey permits. Nashville at 0.992 means the Predators are due some luck. When regression arrives for Montreal, it could arrive quickly.

J. Annunen deserves scrutiny here. Playing on back-to-back nights, he might yield to a backup, or he might take the ice tired. That wrinkle alone can tilt a coin flip.

Montreal's offensive load rests on Cole Caufield. He generates 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes and has buried 33 goals on 16 assists, but his 20.0% shooting rate reveals the whole story: he's converting chances at an unsustainable clip, riding high-danger finishes (1 HD goal recorded). Oliver Kapanen does similar work at a lower volume, 0.83 xG/60 with 19 goals and a 17.8% conversion rate that also won't hold.

Nashville's scoring comes via different avenues. Filip Forsberg sits at 23 goals and 17 assists with 0.80 xG/60—steadier production, less dependent on shooting luck, though his 13.6% mark still outpaces what regression suggests. Zachary L'Heureux presents a smaller puzzle: 4 goals on 0.85 xG/60 shows he's underleveraging his chances at 16.0% shooting.

Both teams have generated zero high-danger rebounds and zero high-danger goals, a statistical oddity that won't persist. Defense enters the picture. Mike Matheson is Montreal's weak point; Jonathan Marchessault shoulders similar burden for Nashville. Exposing either one becomes the path to separation.

The model calls it a coin flip because it is one. Both teams generate nearly identical shot quality. Both teams suppress it at nearly identical rates. The difference lies in what happens in the margin—Caufield's shooting luck, Annunen's legs, a bounce or two on rebound play—the very things that make hockey maddening and predictions honest.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NSH 53%
53%
NSH
Model favorite
47%
53%
MTL50NSH

NSH by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 2.5–2.7 NSH; 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
MTL← edge
edge →NSH
48.0%49.0%
49.0%50.0%
2.412.48
2.622.58
2.241.84
1.962.21
1.0180.992

NSH holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 0.992) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MTL
7-3-0
+8 GD · 2d rest
NSH
6-3-1
+6 GD · 1d rest
1.018
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.992
NSH PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • J. Annunen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MTL
Expected in goal
J. Dobes
2 days rest.962 last start
Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NSH
Expected in goal
J. Annunen
back-to-back.897 last start
Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next