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

Senators hold off the Canadiens

The verdict · earned

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

MTL 3 · OTT 4
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 27, 12:22 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

Ottawa beat Montreal 4-3. Montreal created the better scoring chances from the slot (3–2), yet Ottawa's power play dominance turned the game decisively in their favor.

Even-strength play ran nearly even: Ottawa controlled 59% of expected goals (3.20–2.25). But special teams inverted the result. The Senators converted four power-play goals on 23 shots — all four came off the rush, a possession pattern Montreal's penalty kill couldn't contain.

C. Giroux led with 1 goal and 2 assists in 17:42 of ice. A. Burakovsky chipped in 2 assists across 11:36 of limited minutes. Four different Senators skaters beat J. Dobes with the man advantage; W. Eklund supplied the go-ahead goal at 10:57 of the third.

Montreal struck twice off the rush (two goals in 19 chances) but couldn't overcome the special-teams disparity. S. Pastujov's goal tied the game at 3-3 in the third, yet by that point the Senators had already spent a sixth of the game with a man advantage. Montreal's penalty profile proved catastrophic: ten penalties for ten minutes.

L. Ullmark made 20 saves on 23 for Ottawa; J. Dobes stopped 22 of 26 for Montreal. Both underperformed their expected save percentages — a sign the game outpaced what goaltending could settle.

The goals

  • MTL 1–0, 03:49 of the first. B. Berard, deflection from 6 feet, a 22% chance by the model (a rebound), past L. Ullmark. Assists: H. McKown, S. Pastujov. 1 second after a MTL shot by B. Berard. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • OTT 1–1, 09:16 of the first on the power play. C. Giroux, slap shot from 40 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Assists: T. Chabot, A. Burakovsky. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • OTT 1–2, 10:31 of the second on the power play. D. Batherson, slap shot from 30 feet, a 17% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Assists: J. Sanderson, C. Giroux. 3 seconds after an OTT faceoff win by C. Giroux. Win probability moved 21 points.
  • OTT 1–3, 11:12 of the second on the power play. C. Yakemchuk, wrist shot from 24 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Assists: A. Burakovsky, C. Giroux. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • MTL 2–3, 05:19 of the third. A. Belzile, backhander from 3 feet, a 32% chance by the model (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Assists: J. Struble. Win probability moved 13 points.
  • MTL 3–3, 07:05 of the third. S. Pastujov, snap shot from 30 feet, a 20% chance by the model (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Win probability moved 29 points.
  • OTT 3–4, 10:57 of the third on the power play. W. Eklund, wrist shot from 6 feet, a 20% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Assists: D. Cozens, T. Stützle. Win probability moved 32 points.

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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Preseason · Sep 26
MTL
3
OTT
4

Senators hold off the Canadiens

Chances 2.3 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MTL
2.25
OTT
3.20
41% of the chances59%

The board read MTL 3, OTT 4. The chances read MTL 2.3, OTT 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+0.8
goals above expected
OTT3.20 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MTL2.25 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
The swing
+32
win-probability points
53% → 84% for OTT
OTT 100%the game, start to finish
MTL 100%P1 · P2 · P3
OTTP3 10:57 · PP

W. Eklund makes it 3–4.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:49MTLB. Berard22%1–0
  2. P1 09:16OTTC. GirouxPP14%1–1
  3. P2 10:31OTTD. BathersonPP17%1–2
  4. P2 11:12OTTC. YakemchukPP14%1–3
  5. P3 05:19MTLA. Belzile32%2–3
  6. P3 07:05MTLS. Pastujov20%3–3
  7. P3 10:57OTTW. EklundPP20%3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MTL
29 shots
3
Final
67 shots
OTT
38 shots
4
MTL attackOTT attack
MTL OTT Goal
29
shots · 3 in
38
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MTLOTT
3 / 3
0.73 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.44 xG
0 / 12
1.14 xG
Medium
3 / 21
2.30 xG
0 / 21
0.38 xG
Low
0 / 28
0.47 xG

High-danger looks: MTL 3 of 3, OTT 1 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
L. Ullmark
−0.8
OTT · 20/23 · 59:49
Best save · a 14% chance, wrist from 28 ft · P3 16:39
D-
J. Dobes
−0.8
MTL · 22/26 · 58:17
Best save · a 24% chance, wrist from 6 ft · P2 10:07
Best skater on the ice
A+
OTT
C. Giroux
R · impact 2.43
17:42
Ice time
1–2
G – A
0.40
Own xG
74%
xG share
Impact · top 4
C. Giroux2.4A+
S. Pastujov1.9A+
W. Eklund1.9A+
D. Batherson1.8A
Report card
MTLOTT
OffenseCB
DefenseDC+
TransitionD-B+
Special teamsFA+
GoaltendingD+D+
DisciplineFA+
LuckCC
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why OTT won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Power play cashed in
  3. 03Won on the merits
Why MTL lost
  1. 01Paraded to the penalty box
  2. 02Rush defense leaked all night
  3. 03Power play came up empty
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators hold off the Canadiens

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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 7–11
  1. 03:49MTLB. Berard(H. McKown, S. Pastujov)1–0

    Deflection from 6 feet, a 22% chance (a rebound), past L. Ullmark. 1s after a MTL shot by B. Berard. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: A. Belzile, L. Dauphin, A. Engstrom, J. Davidson, D. Reinbacher · against A. Burakovsky, D. Batherson, D. Cozens, T. Kleven, C. Yakemchuk

  2. 09:16OTTC. Girouxpower play(T. Chabot, A. Burakovsky)1–1

    Slap shot from 40 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: N. Cousins, M. Amadio, T. Kleven, S. Halliday, C. Yakemchuk · against R. Walsh, B. Berard, S. Pastujov, H. McKown, O. Protz

2ndshots 8–7
  1. 10:31OTTD. Bathersonpower play(J. Sanderson, C. Giroux)1–2

    Slap shot from 30 feet, a 17% chance (off the rush), past J. Dobes. 3s after an OTT faceoff win by C. Giroux. Win probability moved 21 points.On the ice: C. Giroux, A. Burakovsky, T. Chabot, F. Zetterlund, C. Yakemchuk · against K. Dach, B. Berard, D. Reinbacher, O. Protz

  2. 11:12OTTC. Yakemchukpower play(A. Burakovsky, C. Giroux)1–3

    Wrist shot from 24 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: N. Cousins, H. Hodgson, T. Kleven, C. Yakemchuk, E. Bakke Olsen · against A. Belzile, L. Dauphin, R. Walsh, A. Engstrom, J. Davidson

3rdshots 8–8
  1. 05:19MTLA. Belzile(J. Struble)2–3

    Backhander from 3 feet, a 32% chance (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Win probability moved 13 points.On the ice: A. Belzile, O. Kapanen, A. Engstrom, D. Reinbacher · against A. Burakovsky, T. Chabot, F. Zetterlund, S. Halliday

  2. 07:05MTLS. Pastujov3–3

    Snap shot from 30 feet, a 20% chance (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Win probability moved 29 points.On the ice: J. Struble, B. Berard, S. Pastujov, A. Xhekaj, H. McKown · against N. Cousins, D. Batherson, D. Cozens, J. Spence, C. Yakemchuk

  3. 10:57OTTW. Eklundpower play(D. Cozens, T. Stützle)3–4

    Wrist shot from 6 feet, a 20% chance (off the rush), past J. Dobes. Win probability moved 32 points.On the ice: C. Giroux, T. Chabot, F. Zetterlund, J. Spence, S. Halliday · against A. Belzile, B. Berard, A. Engstrom, D. Reinbacher

score reads MTL–OTT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.20
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
0.995
OTT puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
58.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.25Expected goals3.20
OTT 59% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal26
3High-danger chances2
36All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: MTL 44% · OTT 56%
Faceoffs · OTT won63%off48%neu55%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MTL3 / 3 · 0.73 xG
OTT1 / 2 · 0.44 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MTL0 / 12 · 1.14 xG
OTT3 / 21 · 2.30 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MTL0 / 21 · 0.38 xG
OTT0 / 28 · 0.47 xG

MTL went 3-for-3 from high danger on 0.73 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MTL
3 G · 2.25 xG · +0.8
OTT
4 G · 3.20 xG · +0.8
012345

MTL finished +0.8 against expected, OTT +0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MTL
WRIST0/16
SNAP1/5
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/7
OTT
WRIST2/21
SNAP0/4
TIP IN0/6
SLAP2/5
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/13
MTL
OTT
Off the rush
2 G on 19
1.69 xG
4 G on 29
2.63 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.36 xG
0 G on 3
0.43 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: MTL went 0-for-16, OTT 2-for-21. OTT scored 4 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
J. Dobes
MTL · 22/26 · .846
started · 58:17 · loss
-0.8
saved above expected
D-
the night
Attempts faced
38
Avg chance faced
8.4%
Stopped vs expected
0.895 vs 0.916
Rebounds allowed
3
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.4-0.6
Medium3/212.3-0.7
Low0/150.5+0.5
Shorthanded4/172.0-2.0
Tips & deflections0/70.5+0.5
The save
24% chance stopped, a wrist from 6 ft · P2 10:07
The one to have back
14% chance went in, a wrist from 24 ft · P2 11:12

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

L. Ullmark
OTT · 20/23 · .870
started · 59:49 · win
-0.8
saved above expected
D
the night
Attempts faced
29
Avg chance faced
7.8%
Stopped vs expected
0.897 vs 0.922
Rebounds allowed
2 · 1 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/30.7-2.3
Medium0/121.1+1.1
Low0/140.4+0.4
Shorthanded0/70.4+0.4
Tips & deflections1/30.4-0.6
The save
14% chance stopped, a wrist from 28 ft · P3 16:39
The one to have back
20% chance went in, a snap from 30 ft · P3 07:05

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

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: C. Giroux (OTT), 17:42 of ice, 1-2, 74% of the expected goals while he was out.

MTL18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
S. PastujovR14:461-179A+
H. McKownC16:140-169A
B. BerardL14:191-040B
F. MesarR8:010-081B
A. BelzileR15:361-038B
J. StrubleD20:500-134C
D. BentleyR7:510-064C
J. DavidsonC11:320-063C
A. EngstromD23:540-046C
L. DauphinC17:000-044D
K. DachC21:210-023D
O. KapanenC20:180-044D
D. ReinbacherD19:090-056D
A. XhekajD18:560-037D
O. ProtzD15:210-018F
Z. BolducR19:570-021F
R. WalshD14:100-08F
S. PoulinR7:120-015F
OTT18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
C. GirouxR17:421-274A+
W. EklundL17:481-092A+
D. BathersonR17:401-071A
A. BurakovskyL11:360-251A
T. StützleC21:180-182A
C. YakemchukD18:391-070A
J. SandersonD13:220-171B
T. ChabotD25:100-160B
D. CozensC21:060-157B
N. CousinsC11:290-036B
M. AmadioR15:070-052C
S. HallidayC13:120-055C
F. ZetterlundL12:420-050C
E. Bakke OlsenC8:530-069C
H. HodgsonR9:550-069D
T. KlevenD20:330-034D
H. StanleyD13:480-052D
J. SpenceD20:110-035F

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, MTL: C. Kreider, P. Danault, M. Matheson, J. Anderson, V. Arseneau, J. Evans and 64 more. Scratched, OTT: S. Harrington, B. Hutton, K. MacDermid, W. Foegele, S. Blais, C. Crotty and 48 more. Referees Pierre Lambert and Michael Markovic; linesmen Scott Cherrey and David Brisebois.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionMTLOTT
Offense
▸Basis

MTL Created 2.25 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.73 xG) and 19 rush shots (1.69 xG).

OTT Created 3.20 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.44 xG) and 29 rush shots (2.63 xG).

C
73
B
85
Defense
▸Basis

MTL Allowed 3.20 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.44 xG) and 29 rush shots (2.63 xG).

OTT Allowed 2.25 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.73 xG) and 19 rush shots (1.69 xG).

D
65
C+
77
Transition
▸Basis

MTL Rush shots 19–29, rush xG 1.69–2.63 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

OTT Rush shots 29–19, rush xG 2.63–1.69 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

D-
61
B+
89
Special teams
▸Basis

MTL 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.29 PP xG.

OTT 4-for-8 on the power play (50%; league ≈21%) with 1.99 PP xG.

F
51
A+
100
Goaltending
▸Basis

MTL -0.80 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.

OTT -0.75 goals saved above expected on 23 shots against.

D+
67
D+
68
Discipline
▸Basis

MTL Took 10 penalties for 28 PIM vs 5 for 10 on the other side.

OTT Took 5 penalties for 10 PIM vs 10 for 28 on the other side.

F
30
A+
100
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

MTL Finishing +0.75 goals vs xG plus -0.80 GSAx of save luck = -0.05 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

OTT Finishing +0.80 goals vs xG plus -0.75 GSAx of save luck = +0.05 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C
75
C
75
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGMTL

Paraded to the penalty box

Took 10 penalties for 28 minutes (opponent: 5 for 10).

Cut the stick infractions — the penalty differential is a controllable.

WARNINGMTL

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 29 rush shots worth 2.63 xG (4 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHOTT

Dangerous off the rush

4 goals on 29 rush shots worth 2.63 xG.

STRENGTHOTT

Power play cashed in

4-for-8 on the power play (50%) on 1.99 PP xG.

WARNINGOTT

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 19 rush shots worth 1.69 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHMTL

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 19 rush shots worth 1.69 xG.

67 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MTL
29 shots
3
Final
67 shots
OTT
38 shots
4
MTL attackOTT attack
MTL OTT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL 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
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:42 on ice · -2
S. Pastujov
#40 · R · MTL
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 14:46 on ice · +2
A. Burakovsky
#95 · L · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 11:36 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Sep 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The rates below are last season's; this exhibition will not count toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 26, 1:46 PMEdited 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 owns the expected-goal battle by five points, and the model likes the Senators at 57% win probability in a projected 3.0 to 3.5 goal game.

The gap lives in underlying play. Ottawa generated 54.8% of expected goals at 5-on-5 this season — Montreal just 49.7%. That five-point spread typically translates to territory: Ottawa holds 52.6% of shot attempts to Montreal's 48.2%, the kind of siege that opens space for offense over time.

Cole Caufield drives Montreal's offense with a relentless 1.50 expected goals per 60 minutes. His 33 goals and 37 assists already carry 15 scoring chances from the slot, the dangerous category that goaltenders dread. Dylan Cozens answers for Ottawa at 1.15 expected goals per 60, with 13 goals and 31 assists, though only 4 came from high-danger areas — a sign that Ottawa's edge spreads across the ice, not concentrated in one player.

Montreal's goaltending is the wild card. Leevi Meriläinen has leaked goals all season with -17.0 goals against expected across 20 games. The team is starting S. Montembeault in this matchup, and he's no bargain: -4.6 against expected in 25 games, with 87.2% save percentage. Opposite him sits L. Ullmark, Ottawa's starter, whose -8.6 gap across 49 games and 89.1% save percentage suggests both teams are getting squeezed by the numbers.

The regression story leans Montreal's way. The Canadiens' shooting and save luck combined measures 1.019 — call it running hot — while Ottawa sits at 0.993, slightly cold. That's the ebb and flow of the sport: hot teams regress, cold teams don't.

For Montreal, contain Cole Caufield while getting Juraj Slafkovský space to work. Slafkovský's 1.32 expected goals per 60, 11 goals, 43 assists, and just 6.1% shooting rate all point to underperformance against his chances.

For Ottawa, 48% of goals come from high-danger areas. Montembeault's struggles mean the Senators should attack the paint relentlessly. Ullmark's 81.9% save percentage on high-danger chances invites the same play — drive the slot, drive it again, and live with Ullmark's mediocre luck catching up.

The model's 57% lean to Ottawa is measured, not emphatic. Montreal has talent enough to win despite the underlying numbers. But if Caufield's 1.50 expected goals per 60 and Ullmark's gap hold true, the Senators' territorial edge should win in time.

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 57%
57%
OTT
Model favorite
43%
57%
MTL50OTT

OTT by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MTL 3.0–3.5 OTT; 16% 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
MTL← edge
edge →OTT
49.7%54.8%
48.2%52.6%
3.283.34
3.322.75
3.403.35
3.062.99
1.0190.993

OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 0.993) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
MTL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
OTT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.019
MTL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

WARNINGOTT

Leevi Meriläinen has leaked goals all season

Leevi Meriläinen: -17.0 GSAx over 20 games.

Shoot from everywhere — volume beats a cold crease.

STRENGTHMTL

Cole Caufield drives the Canadiens offense

Cole Caufield: 33G 37A, 1.50 xG/60, 15 high-danger goals.

TACTICALOTT

Shutdown Assignment: Senators

Highest individual xG/60 on MTL. Gets 56 HD shots. Limit slot access.

Key matchup: Neutralize Cole Caufield (33G, 1.50 xG/60, 15 HD goals)

STRENGTHOTT

Dylan Cozens drives the Senators offense

Dylan Cozens: 13G 31A, 1.15 xG/60, 4 high-danger goals.

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 54.8% 5v5 xG vs 49.7%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 52.6% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 54.8% 5v5 xG vs 49.7%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 52.6% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Goalie matchup: S. Montembeault (-4.6 GSAx in 25 GP, 87.2% SV) vs L. Ullmark (-8.6 GSAx in 49 GP, 89.1% SV).
  • L. Ullmark has struggled — 89.1% SV over 49 starts.
  • The Canadiens' PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
MTL
preseason · vs OTT · Mon, Sep 21
Expected in goal
S. Montembeault
4 days rest.875 last start32:48 played
S. Montembeault started last game and was relieved by J. Dobes (30:31 of it).
Backup Jakub Dobes · +7.0 GSAx this season
Forwards · 12
  • C. Caufield
  • N. Suzuki
  • A. Newhook
  • J. Slafkovský
  • B. Berard
  • S. Pastujov
  • F. Xhekaj
  • Z. Bolduc
  • K. Dach
  • A. Texier
  • O. Kapanen
  • I. Demidov
Defence · 6
  • A. Engstrom
  • J. Struble
  • L. Hutson
  • N. Dobson
  • D. Reinbacher
  • A. Xhekaj
OTT
preseason · vs TOR · Wed, Sep 23
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
2 days rest.870 last start58:50 played
Backup Leevi Meriläinen · -17.0 GSAx this season
Forwards · 12
  • R. Suzuki10:04
  • F. Zetterlund15:34
  • N. Cousins12:06
  • D. Cozens19:19
  • W. Eklund20:16
  • C. Giroux18:21
  • S. Halliday15:30
  • X. Bourgault13:21
  • T. Boucher12:26
  • B. Montgomery13:16
  • R. Greig17:52
  • S. Blais11:31
Defence · 6
  • C. Crotty18:25
  • B. Hutton22:31
  • H. Stanley19:30
  • D. Toure19:46
  • M. Andonovski15:23
  • T. Hamara19:16

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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 37A
1.50 xG/60 · 15 HD · 12.8% sh
Juraj Slafkovský11G 43A
1.32 xG/60 · 16 HD · 6.1% sh
OTT
Dylan Cozens13G 31A
1.15 xG/60 · 4 HD · 6.3% sh
Fabian Zetterlund12G 16A
0.89 xG/60 · 3 HD · 9.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next