Motion-blurred skater in a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater
Breakdown · TOR at ANA

Maple Leafs edge the Ducks in overtime

The verdict · coin flip

The Maple Leafs won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

TOR 5 · ANA 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:41 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 won 5–4 in overtime, despite expected goals suggesting they shouldn't have. The Ducks generated 4.68 xG to Toronto's 4.36—a small but real edge in the underlying play—yet left with nothing.

The divergence came down to high-danger efficiency and goaltending. The Ducks wasted eight high-danger chances, converting zero. Toronto converted 2 of 5 (40%). A. Stolarz stopped all eight high-danger shots he faced (0.875 save percentage overall, +0.68 xG), while V. Husso faltered at 0.828 and -0.64 xG.

The Ducks dominated the volume game. They held 52% of shot attempts (32–29 on goal) and were lethal off the rush, scoring three goals on 39 rush chances. Toronto countered with four rush goals on 32 attempts and a dominant power play: 2 PPG on 13 PP shots (1.14 xG).

John Tavares ended it at 04:55 of overtime with a tip-in, his second of the night. W. Nylander led the Leafs with three assists in 23:35 and one goal. J. LaCombe recorded two assists for the Ducks in 24:53.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 30
TOR
5
ANA
4

Maple Leafs edge the Ducks in overtime

Chances 4.4 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Maple Leafs took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
4.36
ANA
4.68
48% of the chances52%

The board read TOR 5, ANA 4. The chances read TOR 4.4, ANA 4.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TOR
+0.6
goals above expected
TOR4.36 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA4.68 expected · 4 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 06:43ANAL. Carlsson0–1
  2. P1 09:46ANAC. GauthierPP0–2
  3. P1 14:18TORJ. TavaresPP1–2
  4. P2 11:33ANAJ. Carlson1–3
  5. P3 06:55TORM. KniesPP2–3
  6. P3 10:14TORW. Nylander3–3
  7. P3 17:00TORM. Rielly4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
46 shots
5
Final
104 shots
ANA
58 shots
4
TOR attackANA attack
TOR ANA Goal
46
shots · 5 in
58
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TORANA
2 / 5
1.39 xG
High danger
0 / 8
1.93 xG
2 / 23
2.44 xG
Medium
3 / 22
2.17 xG
1 / 29
0.53 xG
Low
1 / 46
0.58 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
A. Stolarz
+0.7
TOR · 28/32
D
V. Husso
−0.6
ANA · 24/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Maple Leafs edge the Ducks in overtime

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 9–9
  1. 06:43ANAL. Carlsson(T. Terry, O. Zellweger)0–1
  2. 09:46ANAC. Gauthierpower play(M. Granlund, C. Kreider)0–2
  3. 14:18TORJ. Tavarespower play(W. Nylander, O. Ekman-Larsson)1–2
2ndshots 10–12
  1. 11:33ANAJ. Carlson(J. LaCombe, B. Sennecke)1–3
3rdshots 7–8
  1. 06:55TORM. Kniespower play(W. Nylander, O. Ekman-Larsson)2–3
  2. 10:14TORW. Nylander(E. Cowan)3–3
  3. 17:00TORM. Rielly(W. Nylander, J. Tavares)4–3
  4. 18:21ANAL. Carlsson(J. Trouba, J. LaCombe)4–4
OTshots 3–3
  1. 04:55TORJ. Tavares(M. Rielly, E. Cowan)5–4

score reads TOR–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.36
TOR chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.035
TOR puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
42.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.36Expected goals4.68
ANA 52% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal32
5High-danger chances8
57All attempts (Corsi)76
Adjusted for score: TOR 47% · ANA 54%
Faceoffs · ANA won61%off52%neu57%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TOR2 / 5 · 1.39 xG
ANA0 / 8 · 1.93 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TOR2 / 23 · 2.44 xG
ANA3 / 22 · 2.17 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TOR1 / 29 · 0.53 xG
ANA1 / 46 · 0.58 xG

ANA went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.93 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TOR
5 G · 4.36 xG · +0.6
ANA
4 G · 4.68 xG · -0.7
0123456

TOR finished +0.6 against expected, ANA -0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TOR
SNAP4/23
WRIST0/6
SLAP0/8
TIP IN1/7
BACKHAND0/2
BAT0/0
OTHER0/11
ANA
SNAP3/23
WRIST1/15
SLAP0/9
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/5
BAT0/1
OTHER0/18
TOR
ANA
Off the rush
4 G on 32
3.47 xG
3 G on 39
3.61 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3
0.34 xG
0 G on 2
0.30 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TOR went 4-for-23, ANA 3-for-23. TOR scored 4 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 · 28/32 · .875
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/81.9+1.9
Medium3/222.2-0.8
Low1/460.6-0.4

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

V. Husso
ANA · 24/29 · .828
-0.6
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.4-0.6
Medium2/232.4+0.4
Low1/290.5-0.5

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

104 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TOR
46 shots
5
Final
104 shots
ANA
58 shots
4
TOR attackANA attack
TOR ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, ANA 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
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
1 G · 3 A · 8 SOG · 23:35 on ice
J. Tavares
#91 · C · TOR
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 21:04 on ice · +1
J. LaCombe
#2 · D · ANA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 24:53 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Mar 30
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:39 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 favors Anaheim. MoneyPuck's model puts the Ducks at 58% win probability in a matchup it expects to land 2.4–2.9 goals, a margin where underlying play becomes decisive.

The Ducks own the territorial advantage convincingly. Anaheim's 52.0% expected goals share and 52.0% Corsi at 5v5 indicate systematic control—they generate higher-quality chances and drive play in ways Toronto hasn't matched this season (46.0% xG, 45.0% Corsi). This structural edge plays out most nights.

But the Ducks are running colder than their numbers deserve. Their 0.981 PDO is depressed, the kind of deficit that signals positive regression ahead. When a team generates this much play and converts this poorly, the market corrects. Anaheim stands to benefit.

Toronto enters weakened. The Maple Leafs are -6 in goal differential over their last 10 games, a slide reflecting their already mediocre underlying profile. Auston Matthews, sidelined for 18 days, is likely out, shifting offensive weight to John Tavares. His 0.91 expected goals per 60 minutes, 15 goals, 24 assists, and 12.4% shooting rate mark him as Toronto's primary offensive threat—but it's a thin one.

Anaheim's offensive core is formidable. Cutter Gauthier (25 goals, 16 assists, 0.99 xG/60, 12.9% shooting) and Beckett Sennecke (20 goals, 19 assists, 1.03 xG/60, eight high-danger chances) will generate looks against Toronto's weak link: Bo Groulx on the blue line. Anaheim's corresponding liability—Mason McTavish on defense—faces a depleted Toronto attack that can't exploit it effectively.

The edge is Anaheim's to squander—superior play, regression mathematics in their pocket, and Toronto's compromised roster. The Ducks should win this.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 58%
58%
ANA
Model favorite
42%
58%
TOR50ANA

ANA by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score TOR 2.4–2.9 ANA; 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 →ANA
46.0%52.0%
45.0%52.0%
2.242.80
2.672.59
2.092.09
2.522.32
1.0020.981

ANA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.981) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TOR
4-4-2
-6 GD · 2d rest
ANA
6-3-1
+4 GD · 2d rest
1.002
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Ducks own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Ducks own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TOR
Expected in goal
J. Woll
2 days rest.868 last start
Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
2 days rest.909 last start
Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 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
ANA
Beckett Sennecke20G 19A
1.03 xG/60 · 8 HD · 13.5% sh
Cutter Gauthier25G 16A
0.99 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next