WARNINGTOR
Rush defense leaked all night
Gave up 23 rush shots worth 1.76 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
The verdict · earned
The Canadiens earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
MTL 4 · TOR 1
Preseason · exhibition
Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 10:28 PMxG: 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
Toronto created almost as much as Montreal did on the night — and still lost by three. The expected-goals split was close, 56-44%, yet the board read 4-1. That gap is the story: the Maple Leafs generated the offense to make this a real game and didn't get paid for it.
Montreal took control late in the second period. P. Danault opened the scoring on a tip from Z. Bolduc and A. Texier, and Toronto answered on the power play through D. Raddysh, assisted by A. Matthews and J. Tavares, to tie it at 1-1 heading into the third. That's when the Canadiens pulled away. M. Szuber restored the lead early in the third off feeds from A. Newhook and M. Matheson, P. Danault added an empty-netter late with helpers from J. Anderson and F. Xhekaj, and Samuel Poulin buried a tip-in from the doorstep with 19:37 gone in the third to make it 4-1. Montreal's night turned on that stretch — three goals in about eighteen minutes of third-period hockey while Toronto never found an answer.
Goaltending told a similar story to the shot totals. S. Montembeault didn't allow a goal on 13 shots in relief and finished 1.5 goals above his expected save total — a share of that stat also credits K. Kahkonen, who played the earlier minutes and stopped 11 of 12. On the other side, A. Stolarz stopped 15 of 17 and still finished with a save percentage that looks worse than his underlying performance suggests, because Toronto's goaltending actually graded out fine by the report card — a B-minus, with S. Bobrovsky even better on paper.
Here's the disconnect the scoreboard hides: Toronto underperformed its own expected-goals total by 1.86 goals. In other words, the Maple Leafs put together enough quality chances to have scored roughly two more goals than they did. This wasn't a game where Toronto got outplayed and lost — it's one where they generated a legitimate share of the offense and ran into a hot Montreal netminder on a night their own bounces didn't go in. The high-danger chances were even tighter than the final score suggests, 3-2 in Montreal's favor, hardly the gulf a 4-1 final implies.
Special teams cut the other way and deserve blame for the margin. Montreal went 0-for-3 on the power play, a fail-grade night by the report card, while Toronto converted once in six chances — worse than the league rate, but still the only power-play goal in the game. Neither team was sharp with the man advantage, which means five-on-five play and goaltending decided this one, not special teams execution.
The biggest concern for Toronto isn't the scoreline — it's the 23 rush shots they conceded, worth 1.76 expected goals and two actual goals against. That's a rush-defense problem more than a shot-quality problem, and it showed up in transition all three periods.