Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Sat, Oct 3 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at TOR

Senators hold off the Maple Leafs

FinalSat, Oct 3
OTTOttawa Senators3TORToronto Maple Leafs2
The verdict · earned

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

OTT 3 · TOR 2
◆ By the ModelOct 3, 9:51 PMxG: 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

The Senators beat the Leafs 3-2. Ottawa's shot quality was superior throughout, and Stephen Halliday's rebound goal late in the third made it stand up.

Ottawa generated 12 high-danger chances to Toronto's 4. The shot attempts were even at 29 apiece, but Ottawa averaged 0.107 expected goals per shot versus Toronto's 0.059—the difference between crisp looks and scraps.

Both goalies outperformed their expected goals. S. Bobrovsky stopped 2.69 more goals than expected, posting a 0.897 save percentage. L. Ullmark saved 2.12 above expectation with a 0.931 mark. Toronto underperformed its expected goals by 2.12; Ottawa underperformed by 2.69. Yet Ottawa still prevailed because their 58% share of expected goals, combined with relentless pressure and second chances, proved enough.

The Maple Leafs created five rebound opportunities and buried none. Ottawa created five and converted two. Halliday's snap shot from 6 feet at 09:46 of the third—a 22% chance by the model—sealed it.

The Three Stars

  • #72 T. Chabot (OTT) — 1G, 1A in 26:35
  • #28 C. Giroux (OTT) — 2A in 17:46
  • #43 D. Raddysh (TOR) — 1A in 22:46

The goals

  • OTT 1–0, 18:51 of the first. T. Chabot, wrist shot from 13 feet, a 10% chance by the model (a rebound), past S. Bobrovsky. Assists: C. Giroux, S. Pinto. 1 second after an OTT shot by C. Giroux. Win probability moved 18 points.
  • TOR 1–1, 00:33 of the second. A. Matthews, tip-in from 18 feet, a 6% chance by the model (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Assists: M. Rielly, W. Nylander. Win probability moved 19 points.
  • TOR 1–2, 07:06 of the second on the power play. K. Marchenko, backhander from 10 feet, a 19% chance by the model, past L. Ullmark. Assists: D. Raddysh, J. Tavares. 6 seconds after a TOR faceoff win by J. Tavares. Win probability moved 20 points.
  • OTT 2–2, 12:40 of the second. M. Amadio, wrist shot from 6 feet, a 32% chance by the model (off the rush), past S. Bobrovsky. Assists: T. Stützle, T. Chabot. 9 seconds after a TOR shot by D. Raddysh. Win probability moved 22 points.
  • OTT 3–2, 09:46 of the third. S. Halliday, snap shot from 6 feet, a 22% chance by the model (a rebound), past S. Bobrovsky. Assists: F. Zetterlund, C. Giroux. 1 second after an OTT shot by F. Zetterlund. Win probability moved 33 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 · Oct 3
OTT
3
TOR
2

Senators hold off the Maple Leafs

Chances 5.7 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
5.69
TOR
4.12
58% of the chances42%

The board read OTT 3, TOR 2. The chances read OTT 5.7, TOR 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−2.7
goals above expected
OTT5.69 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
TOR4.12 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Maple Leafs left 2.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+33
win-probability points
47% → 80% for OTT
TOR 100%the game, start to finish
OTT 100%P1 · P2 · P3
OTTP3 09:46

S. Halliday makes it 3–2.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 18:51OTTT. Chabot10%1–0
  2. P2 00:33TORA. Matthews6%1–1
  3. P2 07:06TORK. MarchenkoPP19%1–2
  4. P2 12:40OTTM. Amadio32%2–2
  5. P3 09:46OTTS. Halliday22%3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
43 shots
3
Final
91 shots
TOR
48 shots
2
OTT attackTOR attack
OTT TOR Goal
43
shots · 3 in
48
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTTOR
2 / 12
3.46 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.92 xG
1 / 18
1.91 xG
Medium
1 / 25
2.83 xG
0 / 23
0.32 xG
Low
0 / 41
0.38 xG

The Senators buried 2 of 12 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Bobrovsky
+2.7
TOR · 26/29 · 58:23
Best save · a 66% chance, backhand from 3 ft · P2 01:09
A
L. Ullmark
+2.1
OTT · 27/29 · 59:29
Best save · a 32% chance, wrist from 5 ft · P2 17:46
Best skater on the ice
A+
OTT
T. Chabot
D · impact 2.42
26:35
Ice time
1–1
G – A
0.15
Own xG
64%
xG share
Impact · top 4
T. Chabot2.4A+
S. Halliday1.7A+
A. Matthews1.9A+
W. Eklund1.7A
Report card
OTTTOR
OffenseA+A+
DefenseFF
TransitionB-D+
Special teamsD-B-
GoaltendingAA+
DisciplineCC
LuckC-B-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why OTT won
  1. 01L. Ullmark stole it
  2. 02Dangerous off the rush
  3. 03Won on the merits
Why TOR lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03Rebound control was shaky
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators hold off the Maple Leafs

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 9–10
  1. 18:51OTTT. Chabot(C. Giroux, S. Pinto)1–0

    Wrist shot from 13 feet, a 10% chance (a rebound), past S. Bobrovsky. 1s after an OTT shot by C. Giroux. Win probability moved 18 points.On the ice: T. Chabot, F. Zetterlund, D. Cozens, J. Spence, W. Eklund, W. Eklund · against J. Tavares, O. Ekman-Larsson, W. Nylander, T. Stecher, G. McKenna

2ndshots 4–14
  1. 00:33TORA. Matthews(M. Rielly, W. Nylander)1–1

    Tip-in from 18 feet, a 6% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past L. Ullmark. Win probability moved 19 points.On the ice: J. Tavares, O. Ekman-Larsson, W. Nylander, T. Stecher, G. McKenna · against F. Zetterlund, D. Cozens, T. Kleven, W. Eklund, N. Matinpalo

  2. 07:06TORK. Marchenkopower play(D. Raddysh, J. Tavares)1–2

    Backhander from 10 feet, a 19% chance, past L. Ullmark. 6s after a TOR faceoff win by J. Tavares. Win probability moved 20 points.On the ice: C. Tanev, T. Blueger, J. McCabe, B. Duhaime, B. Groulx · against T. Chabot, F. Zetterlund, D. Cozens, W. Eklund, C. Yakemchuk

  3. 12:40OTTM. Amadio(T. Stützle, T. Chabot)2–2

    Wrist shot from 6 feet, a 32% chance (off the rush), past S. Bobrovsky. 9s after a TOR shot by D. Raddysh. Win probability moved 22 points.On the ice: N. Cousins, D. Batherson, S. Pinto, T. Kleven, N. Matinpalo · against C. Tanev, T. Blueger, J. McCabe, W. Nylander, E. Cowan

3rdshots 16–5
  1. 09:46OTTS. Halliday(F. Zetterlund, C. Giroux)3–2

    Snap shot from 6 feet, a 22% chance (a rebound), past S. Bobrovsky. 1s after an OTT shot by F. Zetterlund. Win probability moved 33 points.

score reads OTT–TOR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.69
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
−2.7
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.028
OTT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.69Expected goals4.12
OTT 58% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal29
12High-danger chances4
53All attempts (Corsi)70
Adjusted for score: OTT 43% · TOR 57%
Faceoffs · TOR won55%off38%neu30%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT2 / 12 · 3.46 xG
TOR1 / 4 · 0.92 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT1 / 18 · 1.91 xG
TOR1 / 25 · 2.83 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT0 / 23 · 0.32 xG
TOR0 / 41 · 0.38 xG

TOR went 1-for-25 from medium danger on 2.83 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
3 G · 5.69 xG · -2.7
TOR
2 G · 4.12 xG · -2.1
0123456

OTT finished -2.7 against expected, TOR -2.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
WRIST2/21
SLAP0/7
SNAP1/9
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/10
TOR
WRIST0/27
SLAP0/6
SNAP0/2
TIP IN1/8
BACKHAND1/5
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/22
OTT
TOR
Off the rush
1 G on 27
3.71 xG
1 G on 31
2.81 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 5
1.31 xG
0 G on 5
0.52 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 2-for-21, TOR 0-for-27.

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
L. Ullmark
OTT · 27/29 · .931
started · 59:29
+2.1
saved above expected
A
the night
Attempts faced
47
Avg chance faced
8.8%
Stopped vs expected
0.957 vs 0.912
Rebounds allowed
5
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium1/252.8+1.8
Low0/180.4+0.4
Shorthanded1/81.1+0.1
Tips & deflections1/80.5-0.5
The save
32% chance stopped, a wrist from 5 ft · P2 17:46
The one to have back
6% chance went in, a tip-in from 18 ft · P2 00:33

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

S. Bobrovsky
TOR · 26/29 · .897
started · 58:23
+2.7
saved above expected
A+
the night
Attempts faced
43
Avg chance faced
13.2%
Stopped vs expected
0.930 vs 0.868
Rebounds allowed
5 · 2 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/123.5+1.5
Medium1/181.9+0.9
Low0/130.3+0.3
Shorthanded0/131.4+1.4
Tips & deflections0/20.1+0.1
The save
66% chance stopped, a backhand from 3 ft · P2 01:09
The one to have back
10% chance went in, a wrist from 13 ft · P1 18:51

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: T. Chabot (OTT), 26:35 of ice, 1-1, 64% of the expected goals while he was out.

OTT18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
T. ChabotD26:351-164A+
S. HallidayC10:071-077A+
W. EklundL16:160-074A
C. GirouxR17:460-245A
S. PintoC20:270-174A
F. ZetterlundL12:060-173B
M. AmadioR18:421-037B
D. BathersonR18:020-066B
T. StützleC22:200-133C
N. MatinpaloD18:480-058C
J. SpenceD22:300-051C
C. YakemchukD17:500-045D
D. CozensC16:170-040D
N. CousinsC7:210-028D
T. KlevenD21:120-033D
H. HodgsonR5:100-016D
J. SandersonD4:290-02F
W. FoegeleL13:010-04F
TOR18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
A. MatthewsC21:501-069A+
W. NylanderR21:250-169A
D. RaddyshD22:460-186A
K. MarchenkoR19:261-074B
J. TavaresC18:030-149B
M. RiellyD17:520-142B
N. PaulL16:320-063B
E. CowanR11:360-074C
C. SissonsC14:200-036C
J. RoslovicC14:180-066C
O. Ekman-LarssonD16:370-049C
G. McKennaL12:460-048C
J. McCabeD17:450-043D
C. TanevD17:280-046D
T. StecherD18:100-028D
B. GroulxC7:220-026F
B. DuhaimeL9:510-025F
T. BluegerC10:240-013F

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, OTT: A. Burakovsky, C. Crotty, R. Greig. Scratched, TOR: Z. MacEwen, N. Blankenburg. Referees Furman South and Peter MacDougall; linesmen James Tobias and Ryan Daisy.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionOTTTOR
Offense
▸Basis

OTT Created 5.69 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 12 high-danger shots (3.46 xG) and 27 rush shots (3.71 xG).

TOR Created 4.12 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.92 xG) and 31 rush shots (2.81 xG).

A+
100
A+
97
Defense
▸Basis

OTT Allowed 4.12 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.92 xG) and 31 rush shots (2.81 xG).

TOR Allowed 5.69 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 12 high-danger shots (3.46 xG) and 27 rush shots (3.71 xG).

F
53
F
24
Transition
▸Basis

OTT Rush shots 27–31, rush xG 3.71–2.81 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

TOR Rush shots 31–27, rush xG 2.81–3.71 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

B-
82
D+
68
Special teams
▸Basis

OTT 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 1.45 PP xG.

TOR 1-for-4 on the power play (25%; league ≈21%) with 0.75 PP xG.

D-
62
B-
80
Goaltending
▸Basis

OTT +2.12 goals saved above expected on 29 shots against.

TOR +2.69 goals saved above expected on 29 shots against.

A
96
A+
100
Discipline
▸Basis

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

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

C
75
C
75
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

OTT Finishing -2.69 goals vs xG plus +2.12 GSAx of save luck = -0.57 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

TOR Finishing -2.12 goals vs xG plus +2.69 GSAx of save luck = +0.57 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C-
70
B-
80
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
STRENGTHTOR

S. Bobrovsky stole it

S. Bobrovsky stopped 26 of 29 (0.897) — +2.69 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

WARNINGTOR

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 27 rush shots worth 3.71 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHOTT

L. Ullmark stole it

L. Ullmark stopped 27 of 29 (0.931) — +2.12 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

STRENGTHOTT

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 27 rush shots worth 3.71 xG.

WARNINGOTT

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 31 rush shots worth 2.81 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

LUCKOTT

Cold finishing night

Scored 3 on 5.69 xG — -2.69 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
43 shots
3
Final
91 shots
TOR
48 shots
2
OTT attackTOR attack
OTT TOR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
T. Chabot
#72 · D · OTT
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 26:35 on ice · +2
C. Giroux
#28 · R · OTT
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 17:46 on ice · +1
D. Raddysh
#43 · D · TOR
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:46 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 11, 5:30 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

Ottawa is the model's pick over Toronto, and the reason lives in how the two teams have been playing rather than in what the scoreboard says.

The model projects a 3.4 to 3.0 Senators win and gives Ottawa a 56% chance to win. That is a lean, not a lock, and the case starts with process.

The Senators own the underlying play. Expected goals, the model's estimate of how often chances turn into goals, gives Ottawa 52.7% of the total at five-on-five. Toronto's share is 45.5%.

The counterpoint is shot attempts, the count of every shot aimed at the net. Toronto actually edges Ottawa there, with 49.3% of the total. The Senators hold 47.2%.

Ottawa also arrives rested, with 6 days of rest. Toronto has only 2 days.

The bigger question is luck. PDO, a team's shooting percentage plus its save percentage, is the number that tells you whether a team's results are running ahead of its play. Ottawa's sits at 1.042, which is running hot, so expect some regression. Toronto's is 0.993.

In goal, the matchup tilts toward A. Stolarz. S. Ersson is at minus 0.9 in goals saved above expected over 2 games played, which means he has allowed more goals than his shots predicted. His save percentage is 88.6%. A. Stolarz is at plus 0.4 in the same measure, and his save percentage is 90.4%.

Ottawa's process is the real case for the lean. Its luck and the goalie matchup are the reasons to hold that lean loosely.

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 56%
56%
OTT
Model favorite
56%
44%
OTT50TOR

OTT by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 3.4–3.0 TOR; 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
OTT← edge
edge →TOR
52.7%45.5%
47.2%49.3%
3.113.16
2.783.79
2.803.33
2.202.83
1.0420.993

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.042 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 0–2
OTT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 6d rest
TOR
1-1-0
+0 GD · 2d rest
1.042
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
TOR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALOTT

Rest edge

The Senators come in on 6 days of rest; the other side on 2.

Push the pace early against tired legs.

TACTICAL

The Senators own the underlying play

The Senators own the underlying play — 52.7% 5v5 xG vs 45.5%.

WARNINGOTT

Regression watch: Senators

The Senators' PDO is 1.042 — running hot, expect some regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

TACTICALOTT

S. Ersson was beatable last time out

S. Ersson stopped just 84.6% in his last start.

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 52.7% 5v5 xG vs 45.5%.
Regression watch
  • The Senators' PDO is 1.042 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 52.7% 5v5 xG vs 45.5%.
  • Goalie matchup: S. Ersson (-0.9 GSAx in 2 GP, 88.6% SV) vs A. Stolarz (+0.4 GSAx in 2 GP, 90.4% SV).
  • The Senators' PDO is 1.042 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Senators have 4 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
OTT
Expected in goal
S. Ersson
6 days rest.846 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · +3.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TOR
Expected in goal
A. Stolarz
2 days rest.963 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · +3.8 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.

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page