Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
← Sat, Apr 11 · the slate
Breakdown · FLA at TOR

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

FinalSat, Apr 11
FLAFlorida Panthers6TORToronto Maple Leafs2
The verdict · earned

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

FLA 6 · TOR 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:19 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 Panthers demolished the Maple Leafs 6–2, and the underlying numbers tell the full story. Toronto controlled 43% of shot attempts but generated anemic chances; Florida capitalized on quality.

The gap in shot quality was stark: The Panthers generated 4.97 expected goals at 0.087 xG per shot, while the Maple Leafs managed 2.67 at 0.050 xG per shot. High-danger chances favored Florida 6–4. Toronto created three rebound opportunities and converted none. Florida was lethal off the rush, scoring six goals on 26 chances.

Both goalies exceeded expectations. D. Tarasov recorded 17 saves on 19 shots (0.895 SV%), outperforming xG by 0.67 goals. J. Woll made 19 saves on 23 shots (0.826 SV%), beating xG by 0.97. His superior performance couldn't overcome Florida's dominance in chance creation.

Florida's 1.03-goal overperformance of xG was the only surprise—the 6–2 scoreline accurately reflected their control. Toronto's shot volume masked a larger offensive failure: when they had possession, they couldn't generate danger.

Tomas Nosek's backhander from the wing at 18:07 of the third period punctuated Florida's superiority.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 11
FLA
6
TOR
2

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

Chances 5.0 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
4.97
TOR
2.67
65% of the chances35%

The board read FLA 6, TOR 2. The chances read FLA 5.0, TOR 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
+1.0
goals above expected
FLA4.97 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR2.67 expected · 2 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 00:23FLAE. Luostarinen1–0
  2. P1 05:32FLAC. Reinhardt2–0
  3. P2 01:32FLAT. Nosek3–0
  4. P2 10:55TORW. NylanderPP3–1
  5. P2 13:16TORW. Nylander3–2
  6. P3 04:13FLAM. Samoskevich4–2
  7. P3 15:56FLAA. GreerEN5–2
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
43 shots
6
Final
79 shots
TOR
36 shots
2
FLA attackTOR attack
FLA TOR Goal
43
shots · 6 in
36
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLATOR
2 / 6
2.99 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.89 xG
3 / 13
1.41 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.31 xG
1 / 38
0.57 xG
Low
0 / 36
0.46 xG

The Panthers buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Woll
+1.0
TOR · 19/23
B
D. Tarasov
+0.7
FLA · 17/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers 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 8–6
  1. 00:23FLAE. Luostarinen(M. Samoskevich)1–0
  2. 05:32FLAC. Reinhardt(D. Sebrango, V. Hinostroza)2–0
2ndshots 7–6
  1. 01:32FLAT. Nosek(M. Alscher)3–0
  2. 10:55TORW. Nylanderpower play(J. Tavares, E. Cowan)3–1
  3. 13:16TORW. Nylander3–2
3rdshots 10–7
  1. 04:13FLAM. Samoskevich(A. Greer, E. Luostarinen)4–2
  2. 15:56FLAA. Greerempty net(E. Luostarinen, M. Samoskevich)5–2
  3. 18:07FLAT. Nosekempty net(N. Gregor)6–2

score reads FLA–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.97
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.067
FLA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
51.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.97Expected goals2.67
FLA 65% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal19
6High-danger chances4
57All attempts (Corsi)53
Adjusted for score: FLA 45% · TOR 55%
Faceoffs · TOR won75%off63%neu55%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA2 / 6 · 2.99 xG
TOR1 / 4 · 0.89 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA3 / 13 · 1.41 xG
TOR1 / 13 · 1.31 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA1 / 38 · 0.57 xG
TOR0 / 36 · 0.46 xG

FLA went 3-for-13 from medium danger on 1.41 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
6 G · 4.97 xG · +1.0
TOR
2 G · 2.67 xG · -0.7
01234567

FLA finished +1.0 against expected, TOR -0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
WRIST3/24
SLAP0/6
SNAP1/5
BACKHAND2/3
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/14
TOR
WRIST1/25
SLAP0/4
SNAP1/3
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/17
FLA
TOR
Off the rush
6 G on 26
2.63 xG
1 G on 23
2.19 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.52 xG
0 G on 3
0.14 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 3-for-24, TOR 1-for-25. FLA scored 6 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
D. Tarasov
FLA · 17/19 · .895
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium1/131.3+0.3
Low0/360.5+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

J. Woll
TOR · 19/23 · .826
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/63.0+1.0
Medium3/131.4-1.6
Low1/380.6-0.4

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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
43 shots
6
Final
79 shots
TOR
36 shots
2
FLA attackTOR attack
FLA TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA left, TOR 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
E. Luostarinen
#27 · C · FLA
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 15:10 on ice · +2
M. Samoskevich
#11 · R · FLA
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 13:37 on ice · +3
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 19:48 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Apr 11
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:18 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 2.6–2.5 Panthers victory with Florida at 51% win probability—a true coin flip. Both teams are functionally indistinguishable at the extremes: each sits -14 in goal differential over their last ten games.

The separation lies in possession. Florida generates xG at 49.0% while driving Corsi at 52.0%, indicating territorial control that doesn't always convert. Toronto's 46.0% xG and 45.0% Corsi paint a starker picture—they're being outshot and out-corsi'd. The Maple Leafs' PDO sits at 1.002, suggesting unsustainable bounces; Florida's 0.989 implies the opposite. Florida's advantage is real and sustainable.

The injury situation complicates everything. Auston Matthews has not played in 30 days and is likely out; Toronto loses its best finisher at 1.10 xG/60 and 17 goals. Brad Marchand hasn't played in 36 days and is likely out; at 17 goals and 19.5% shooting, Florida loses significant secondary scoring. John Tavares (15 goals, 24 assists, 0.91 xG/60, 12.4% shooting) carries Toronto's playmaking. Sam Bennett, at 0.97 xG/60 with 18 goals and six high-danger goals, becomes Florida's primary threat.

Neutralizing Bennett is Toronto's priority. Their defensive weak link is Bo Groulx—Florida should hunt that pairing relentlessly.

Three Stars to Watch

  • Sam Bennett (FLA) — 18G, 19A; 0.97 xG/60
  • John Tavares (TOR) — 15G, 24A; 0.91 xG/60
  • Auston Matthews (TOR) — 17G, 13A; 1.10 xG/60 (if active)

The gap is vanishingly small. Florida's possession edge offers a genuine advantage. The model's lean toward the Panthers holds up under scrutiny.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

FLA 51%
51%
FLA
Model favorite
51%
49%
FLA50TOR

FLA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 2.6–2.5 TOR; 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
FLA← edge
edge →TOR
49.0%46.0%
52.0%45.0%
2.482.24
2.562.67
1.982.09
2.212.52
0.9891.002

FLA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 1.002) says TOR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
FLA
3-6-1
-14 GD · 2d rest
TOR
3-5-2
-14 GD · 2d rest
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.002
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Panthers are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
FLA
Expected in goal
S. Bobrovsky
2 days rest.840 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR
Expected in goal
A. Akhtyamov
2 days rest.886 last start
Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page