WARNINGOTT
Rush defense leaked all night
Gave up 23 rush shots worth 2.35 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
The verdict · earned
The Maple Leafs earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
TOR 4 · OTT 2
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 25, 1:00 AMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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 beat Ottawa 4-2 on a night when the quality of chances diverged sharply from the shot count. The Maple Leafs found the dangerous areas; Ottawa did not.
Where they won: expected goals. Toronto generated 3.52 against Ottawa's 1.67, a ratio that left little doubt about who played the better game. The Maple Leafs controlled 68% of expected goals while holding only 47% of shot attempts—a 21-point gap between shot share and quality share that captures the full performance.
Toronto created six high-danger chances; the Senators created one. That disparity came from both offense and defense: the Maple Leafs attacked the high-danger areas while Ottawa's transition defense leaked chances on the rush. V. Lettieri and M. Rifai both assisted on plays that exposed those weaknesses.
The scoring reflected it. H. Rybinski opened the game from 6 feet on a rebound, then S. Lorentz tipped one in from the slot (another 6-footer). R. Tverberg snapped one from distance, and T. Blueger finished into an empty net. The power play cashed in once. The rush game worked twice.
Goaltending told its own story. A. Stolarz made 19 saves on 21 shots for Toronto. L. Ullmark made 20 saves on 23 for Ottawa, stopping 0.52 expected goals above what the model projected—a strong night in a lost cause. The Senators scored twice on 18 rush chances, but that aggression cost them: Toronto gave up 23 rush shots worth 2.35 expected goals, gaps that appeared every period.
The goals
- TOR 1–0, 03:51 of the second on the power play. H. Rybinski, snap shot from 6 feet, a 20% chance by the model (a rebound), past L. Ullmark. Assists: V. Lettieri, N. Blankenburg. 1 second after a TOR shot by V. Lettieri. Win probability moved 20 points.
- OTT 1–1, 06:18 of the second. D. Cozens, wrist shot from 22 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Stolarz. 4 seconds after a TOR giveaway by B. Smith. Win probability moved 21 points.
- TOR 2–1, 10:01 of the third. S. Lorentz, tip-in from 6 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Assists: M. Rifai, B. Duhaime. Win probability moved 33 points.
- OTT 2–2, 10:42 of the third. H. Stanley, backhander from 12 feet, a 19% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Stolarz. Assists: T. Hamara, C. Giroux. Win probability moved 34 points.
- TOR 3–2, 15:43 of the third. R. Tverberg, snap shot from 26 feet, a 17% chance by the model, past L. Ullmark. Assists: J. Quillan, B. Smith. 6 seconds after a TOR shot by J. Quillan. Win probability moved 40 points.
- TOR 4–2, 19:52 of the third into an empty net. T. Blueger, snap shot from 62 feet, a 1% chance by the model. 2 seconds after an OTT giveaway by B. Hutton.
What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.