Backcheck
Recap · CBJ at TOR

Blue Jackets edge the Maple Leafs in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 11, 4:55 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
CBJ
Columbus Blue Jackets
3
Home
TOR
Toronto Maple Leafs
2
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.76Expected goals2.83
57% share for the better side
30Shot attempts (SOG)29
8High-danger chances3
63Corsi (all attempts)72
Score-adjusted: 45% / 55%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Columbus's overtime victory reflected their clear superiority in underlying play. Z. Werenski orchestrated a 57% expected-goals advantage from the blue line with three assists, anchored by an 8-3 high-danger-chance edge. CBJ's shot quality exceeded Toronto's — 0.060 xG per attempt versus 0.039. They capitalized with three goals on 26 rush chances.

Toronto's shot volume (49% of attempts) masked a critical weakness: only 43% of expected goals. They generated pressure without consequence. J. Tavares scored and assisted in defeat, but Toronto never generated the dangerous chances needed to overcome their quality deficit.

Both J. Greaves and J. Woll played above their expected levels, compressing the 3.76–2.83 xG split into a single-goal margin. Elite goaltending kept the scoreline tighter than underlying play justified.

A. Fantilli scored the game-winner at 04:21 of overtime with a wrist shot from the doorstep, rewarding Columbus's dominance. Werenski's playmaking and CBJ's lethal finishing on the rush proved the decisive difference.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CBJ2 / 8 · 2.09 xG
TOR1 / 3 · 0.59 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CBJ0 / 9 · 0.99 xG
TOR0 / 14 · 1.56 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CBJ1 / 46 · 0.69 xG
TOR1 / 55 · 0.68 xG

TOR went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.56 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CBJ
3 G · 3.76 xG · -0.8
TOR
2 G · 2.83 xG · -0.8
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. GreavesCBJ
+0.8
J. WollTOR
+0.8

CBJ finished -0.8 against expected, TOR -0.8 — J. Greaves (CBJ) saved 0.8 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
CBJ
WRIST2/34
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/0
SLAP0/5
SNAP0/1
DEFLECTED1/2
OTHER0/17
TOR
WRIST2/27
TIP IN0/7
BACKHAND0/7
SLAP0/1
SNAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/28
CBJ
TOR
Off the rush
3 G on 26 · 2.73 xG
1 G on 28 · 1.96 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6 · 0.77 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.42 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: CBJ went 2-for-34, TOR 2-for-27. CBJ scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
0 G · 3 A · 6 SOG · 28:48 TOI · +2
A. Fantilli
#19 · C · CBJ
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:19 TOI · +2
J. Tavares
#91 · C · TOR
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 20:59 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • CBJ had the higher quality looks — 0.060 xG/shot vs 0.039.
  • CBJ was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • TOR created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • CBJ created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · CBJ at TOR · 7:00 PM ET

Blue Jackets at Maple Leafs: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 4:52 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
CBJ
Model favorite
53%
47%
CBJ50TOR

CBJ by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CBJ 2.62.5 TOR; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

CBJ← edge
edge →TOR
52.0%5v5 xG%46.0%
51.0%Corsi%45.0%
2.63xGF / 602.24
2.43xGA / 602.67
2.12Goals for / gm2.09
1.98Goals against / gm2.52
1.003PDO — luck, not skill1.002

CBJ holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 1.002) says CBJ has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.6–2.5 CBJ victory with the Blue Jackets at 53% win probability. This is as close to even as the metrics get.

Columbus owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Blue Jackets generate 52.0% expected goals to Toronto's 46.0%—a real advantage. Corsi backs this up at 51.0% to 45.0%, suggesting the Blue Jackets should control territorial possession. But Columbus is -7 in goal differential over their last 10 games, meaning recent results have diverged from what the play suggests. Neither team has been helped by unusual puck luck: Columbus's PDO sits at 1.003, Toronto's at 1.002, both neutral.

Both starting goaltenders arrive on back-to-backs, which creates unpredictability around who takes the crease. Either E. Merzlikins or J. Woll might be replaced by a backup, depending on how each team manages rest.

The matchup tilts toward Columbus's depth. Boone Jenner has compiled 11 goals and 21 assists on 0.98 xG/60, with two high-danger markers on a 9.6% shooting rate—efficiency that suggests he's getting chances where teams actually lose playoff games. Mathieu Olivier has scored 12 goals on a blistering 13.3% shooting rate, though his 0.89 xG/60 means some regression is likely coming.

Toronto counters with volume. Auston Matthews leads at 1.10 xG/60, with 17 goals and 13 assists on a 10.6% clip. John Tavares has posted 15 goals and 24 assists at 0.91 xG/60 on a 12.4% clip, with three high-danger goals providing a steadier secondary threat.

The real edge is Columbus's puck play. Toronto's metrics lag meaningfully, yet the team remains dangerous because of personnel. Neither team figures to blow the other out. A one-goal game wouldn't surprise anyone looking at these numbers.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters