Motion-blurred skater in a New York Islanders sweater

Breakdown · TOR at NYI

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

FinalThu, Apr 9

TORToronto Maple Leafs3 NYINew York Islanders5

The verdict · earned

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

TOR 3 · NYI 5

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:57 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 Islanders held 72% of expected goals but needed A. Akhtyamov to steal one from Toronto. The goalie stopped 2.0 goals above expected, which masked how thoroughly the Islanders dominated the Maple Leafs in a 5-3 win.

NYI controlled the game: 73% of shot attempts (44–16), 6.98 xG to 2.68, and created 11 high-danger chances to Toronto's one. Yet they underperformed their xG by 1.98 goals—wasted quality. A. Akhtyamov's 0.886 save percentage was 1.98 goals better than expected, keeping the scoreboard tighter than the play warranted.

The Islanders were lethal on the rush, converting 3 of 39 chances. Toronto found its only offense in transition too, scoring 3 goals on 25 rush attempts. Away from speed play, the Leafs managed just 2 goals from low-danger spots—the kind of goals opposing goalies are supposed to stop.

Shot quality separated the teams. New York generated 0.088 xG per shot; Toronto managed 0.046. The Islanders crashed for rebounds effectively, creating 10 opportunities and converting 2. Toronto created 4 rebound chances and capitalized on zero.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 9

TOR

NYI

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

Chances 2.7 – 7.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Islanders earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

2.68

NYI

6.98

28% of the chances72%

The board read TOR 3, NYI 5. The chances read TOR 2.7, NYI 7.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

NYI

−2.0

goals above expected

NYI6.98 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

TOR2.68 expected · 3 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

P1 02:08NYIB. SchennPP0–1
P1 04:55NYIJ. Pageau0–2
P1 05:11TORS. Lorentz1–2
P2 01:57TORE. CowanPP2–2
P2 09:39NYIM. Schaefer2–3
P2 16:44NYIE. HeinemanPP2–4
P3 10:20NYIC. RitchiePP2–5

+1 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

TOR

46 shots

Final

110 shots

NYI

64 shots

TOR NYI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORNYI

0 / 1

0.19 xG

High danger

2 / 11

3.42 xG

1 / 15

1.68 xG

Medium

3 / 22

2.75 xG

2 / 42

0.81 xG

Low

0 / 46

0.80 xG

The Islanders buried 2 of 11 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A. Akhtyamov

+2.0

TOR · 39/44

I. Sorokin

−0.3

NYI · 13/16

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Islanders 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 3–24

02:08NYIB. Schennpower play(C. Ritchie, B. Horvat)0–1
04:55NYIJ. Pageau(M. Shabanov, A. Pelech)0–2
05:11TORS. Lorentz1–2

2ndshots 6–12

01:57TORE. Cowanpower play(J. Tavares, O. Ekman-Larsson)2–2
09:39NYIM. Schaefer(T. DeAngelo, O. Palat)2–3
16:44NYIE. Heinemanpower play(M. Barzal, T. DeAngelo)2–4

3rdshots 7–8

10:20NYIC. Ritchiepower play2–5
14:04TORM. Rielly(M. Maccelli, L. Haymes)3–5

score reads TOR–NYI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

6.98

NYI chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.0

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.012

NYI puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

57.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.68Expected goals6.98

NYI 72% of the chance quality

16Shots on goal44

1High-danger chances11

58All attempts (Corsi)79

Adjusted for score: TOR 48% · NYI 53%

Faceoffs · NYI won66%off63%neu26%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR0 / 1 · 0.19 xG

NYI2 / 11 · 3.42 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR1 / 15 · 1.68 xG

NYI3 / 22 · 2.75 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR2 / 42 · 0.81 xG

NYI0 / 46 · 0.80 xG

NYI went 2-for-11 from high danger on 3.42 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

3 G · 2.68 xG · +0.3

NYI

5 G · 6.98 xG · -2.0

012345678

TOR finished +0.3 against expected, NYI -2.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST3/28

SNAP0/3

TIP IN0/6

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/12

NYI

WRIST1/19

SNAP4/35

TIP IN0/4

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/15

TOR

NYI

Off the rush

3 G on 25

1.65 xG

3 G on 39

3.93 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.38 xG

2 G on 10

2.22 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 3-for-28, NYI 1-for-19. 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. Akhtyamov

TOR · 39/44 · .886

+2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/113.4+1.4

Medium3/222.8-0.3

Low0/460.8+0.8

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

I. Sorokin

NYI · 13/16 · .812

-0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.2+0.2

Medium1/151.7+0.7

Low2/420.8-1.2

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

110 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

46 shots

Final

110 shots

NYI

64 shots

TOR NYI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, NYI 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

T. DeAngelo

#77 · D · NYI

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 20:33 on ice · +2

C. Ritchie

#64 · C · NYI

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 15:31 on ice

M. Schaefer

#48 · D · NYI

1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 24:50 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:56 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 TOR 2.5–2.7 game with the Islanders at 54% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Possession slightly favors New York: the Islanders' 49.0% Corsi rate hints at territorial dominance, though Toronto's 45.0% is not far behind. Expected goal share tells a similar story—NYI at 48.0% xG%, TOR at 46.0%—but the spreads are narrow enough that variance, not skill, may decide this one. Toronto's 1.002 PDO suggests they're outperforming at the margins; New York's 0.993 implies modest underperformance.

The edge lives in New York's territorial profile. Expect the Islanders to spend more time in Toronto's zone, which tests how well the Leafs' weak defensive link—Bo Groulx—handles sustained pressure. Toronto counters with Auston Matthews at 1.10 xG/60 and 17 goals, though his 10.6% shooting rate already reflects some fortune. John Tavares adds 0.91 xG/60 with a sturdier 12.4% conversion rate, backed by 15 goals and 24 assists.

New York's attack centers on Anders Lee at 1.20 xG/60, the highest rate on either team, despite his modest 9-goal total—he's generating chances at a high rate without finishing them. Bo Horvat has been more efficient, scoring 18 goals on 0.87 xG/60 with a 12.8% shooting rate that dwarfs Lee's 6.4%.

Neither team excels at high-danger scoring: both register 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goals, a peculiar blank that suggests incomplete data or a systemic gap in second-chance creation. Alexander Romanov, the Islanders' defensive weak link, will face Auston Matthews' volume; whether the Leafs' top scorer finds dangerous ice could tip the balance.

The model says stay away or bet the middle. The metrics say New York owns the ice; Toronto owns the individual talent. No clear verdict emerges—which is precisely why it's a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NYI 54%

54%

NYI

Model favorite

46%

54%

TOR50NYI

NYI by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score TOR 2.5–2.7 NYI; 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 →NYI

46.0%48.0%

45.0%49.0%

2.242.48

2.672.69

2.091.78

2.521.94

1.0020.993

NYI holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.993) says TOR 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

NYI

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.002

TOR PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.993

NYI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Islanders drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Islanders drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.

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

NYI

Anders Lee9G 20A

1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh

Bo Horvat18G 10A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page