Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · TOR at OTT

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

The verdict · earned

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

TOR 1 · OTT 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:53 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

Ottawa decimated Toronto's expected goals—72% to 28%—yet still only won 3-1. The Senators generated 5.31 xG against Toronto's 2.05, controlled shot attempts 38-20, and won high-danger chances 6-3. But they underperformed their xG by 2.31 goals, meaning quality opportunities went unfinished.

Toronto's D. Hildeby (0.946 SV%, +3.31 above expected) saved 3.3 goals beyond his expected workload. Despite the final score, he was the game's most consequential player, keeping the Maple Leafs in a game they should have lost by larger margins.

The underlying edge came from shot quality. Ottawa created chances at 0.076 xG per shot against Toronto's 0.049. The Senators were lethal on the rush—2 goals on 33 chances—and created 4 rebound opportunities, though they converted zero.

Where the Senators pulled clear: special teams. They scored twice on 9 power-play shots generating 0.88 xG—a dominance that broke through when even-strength play was tightly contested.

Dylan Cozens's wrist shot from the slot at 19:54 of the third was the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 15
TOR
1
OTT
3

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

Chances 2.0 – 5.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TOR
2.05
OTT
5.31
28% of the chances72%

The board read TOR 1, OTT 3. The chances read TOR 2.0, OTT 5.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−2.3
goals above expected
OTT5.31 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR2.05 expected · 1 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 06:04OTTD. BathersonPP0–1
  2. P2 18:32OTTW. FoegelePP0–2
  3. P3 08:11TORW. Nylander1–2
  4. P3 19:54OTTD. CozensEN1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TOR
33 shots
1
Final
90 shots
OTT
57 shots
3
TOR attackOTT attack
TOR OTT Goal
33
shots · 1 in
57
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TOROTT
0 / 3
0.64 xG
High danger
1 / 6
2.40 xG
1 / 7
0.86 xG
Medium
2 / 20
2.16 xG
0 / 32
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 44
0.76 xG

The Maple Leafs went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Hildeby
+3.3
TOR · 35/37
B+
J. Reimer
+1.1
OTT · 19/20
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators 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 6–14
  1. 06:04OTTD. Bathersonpower play(C. Giroux, J. Spence)0–1
2ndshots 6–12
  1. 18:32OTTW. Foegelepower play(L. Thomson, F. Zetterlund)0–2
3rdshots 8–12
  1. 08:11TORW. Nylander(J. Quillan, E. Cowan)1–2
  2. 19:54OTTD. Cozensempty net(S. Pinto, C. Giroux)1–3

score reads TOR–OTT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.31
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
−2.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.019
OTT puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
62.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.05Expected goals5.31
OTT 72% of the chance quality
20Shots on goal38
3High-danger chances6
42All attempts (Corsi)70
Adjusted for score: TOR 42% · OTT 58%
Faceoffs · OTT won50%off65%neu59%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TOR0 / 3 · 0.64 xG
OTT1 / 6 · 2.40 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TOR1 / 7 · 0.86 xG
OTT2 / 20 · 2.16 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TOR0 / 32 · 0.56 xG
OTT0 / 44 · 0.76 xG

OTT went 1-for-6 from high danger on 2.40 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TOR
1 G · 2.05 xG · -1.1
OTT
3 G · 5.31 xG · -2.3
0123456

TOR finished -1.1 against expected, OTT -2.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TOR
WRIST0/15
SNAP0/6
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND1/4
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
OTT
WRIST2/30
SNAP1/10
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/8
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/13
TOR
OTT
Off the rush
1 G on 24
1.51 xG
2 G on 33
3.62 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.26 xG
0 G on 4
0.62 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 0-for-15, OTT 2-for-30. OTT 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
D. Hildeby
TOR · 35/37 · .946
+3.3
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/62.4+1.4
Medium2/202.2+0.2
Low0/440.8+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

J. Reimer
OTT · 19/20 · .950
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.6+0.6
Medium1/70.9-0.1
Low0/320.6+0.6

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TOR
33 shots
1
Final
90 shots
OTT
57 shots
3
TOR attackOTT attack
TOR OTT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR left, OTT 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
C. Giroux
#28 · R · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 17:12 on ice · +1
J. Spence
#10 · D · OTT
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:22 on ice
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:28 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Apr 15
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:52 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 Ottawa winning 61% of these matchups, with a final score likely landing between 2.2 and 2.8 goals per side. That's a lean toward the Senators rooted in measurable territorial dominance.

Ottawa has won 5 of its last 10 games on a 5-3-2 pace, while Toronto has stumbled to -15 goal differential over the same stretch. Recent form matters in hockey, and the Senators are playing the better game.

The underlying numbers confirm it. At 5v5, Ottawa generates 56.0% of expected goals versus Toronto's 46.0%—a 10-point gap that reflects who controls play. The Corsi split reinforces that: Ottawa owns 53.0% of shot attempts to Toronto's 45.0%, suggesting a territorial tilt throughout the evening. Toronto's 1.002 PDO (marginally fortunate) and Ottawa's 0.993 (unlucky) suggests regression; the Senators will get their chances and convert them more efficiently than recent results indicate.

Brady Tkachuk is Ottawa's engine at 1.19 xG/60, carrying 11 goals and 20 assists on a 7.5% shooting rate. Dylan Cozens adds depth at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals, 15 assists, and 9.5% shooting. Both have room to exceed their current output if this model holds.

For Toronto, the situation is more complicated. Auston Matthews has generated 1.10 xG/60 this season with 17 goals and 13 assists, but he hasn't played in 34 days and is likely unavailable. John Tavares will carry more offensive burden than usual: he's at 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals and 24 assists on a hot 12.4% shooting rate, but high shooting percentages are unsustainable. Once Tavares' luck normalizes, Toronto's power-play reliance becomes even more exposed.

Defensively, Toronto has surrendered opportunities without capitalizing on its own: a 0% hard-goal rate and 0% rebound-goal rate suggest they're not getting second chances. Bo Groulx represents a weak point in the lineup. Ottawa shows the same limitation with Nick Jensen as the defensive vulnerability, but a team that controls play and gets more chances doesn't need to be perfect at converting the difficult ones.

This is a matchup where the model is translating structure into probability. Ottawa has the territorial edge, the hotter team, and the players generating quality looks. Toronto is undermanned without Matthews and riding an unsustainable shooting percentage. The Senators' 61% projected win rate reflects a gap in actual game control, not randomness.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 61%
61%
OTT
Model favorite
39%
61%
TOR50OTT

OTT by 22 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score TOR 2.2–2.8 OTT; 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 →OTT
46.0%56.0%
45.0%53.0%
2.242.66
2.672.12
2.092.18
2.521.99
1.0020.993

OTT holds 6 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 · Last 10
TOR
3-6-1
-15 GD · 2d rest
OTT
5-3-2
+7 GD · 3d rest
1.002
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Senators are the hotter team by points pace (5-3-2 in their last 10).
  • The Maple Leafs are underwater at -15 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TOR
Expected in goal
A. Akhtyamov
2 days rest.844 last start
Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

OTT
Expected in goal
J. Reimer
3 days rest.867 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next