Ottawa dominated by shot quality. The Senators generated 4.54 expected goals to Montreal's 2.11, controlling 68% of the 5v5 battle. More striking: high-danger chances favored Ottawa 9–1, a gulf that renders the 5–2 final score understated.

Montreal kept the shot volume reasonably close—22 to 29—but quality diverged sharply. At 0.044 expected goals per shot, the Canadiens generated offense with less efficiency than Ottawa's 0.072. This explains why S. Montembeault, faced with 29 shots, gave up 5 goals. L. Ullmark, facing 22, allowed just 2.

Where Montreal struck. The Canadiens' power play was dangerous: 2 goals on 5 shots (0.42 xG). On the rush, they converted 2 of 23 chances—solid, though Ottawa's rush conversion (4 of 28) still outpaced it.

Where Ottawa separated. The Senators dominated the net-front battle, generating 4 rebound opportunities and converting 1. Brady Tkachuk's snap shot from the high slot at 12:43 of the third period opened the floodgates. J. Spence (2A) and T. Kleven (2A) ran the offense; both logged over 20 minutes.

The underlying margin was comprehensive. Ottawa's attack was sharper, their goaltender more composed under pressure, and their rush execution more lethal. Montreal's offensive sparks—especially the power play—came too sparsely to matter.

The model likes Ottawa by a hair. The projection: 2.6 goals for the Senators, 2.4 for the Canadiens, 55% win probability—close enough that a coin flip would yield the same answer.

The reason it's so tight: Ottawa controls the underlying play, but Montreal is overperforming its talent. The Senators own 56.0% of 5v5 expected goals against 48.0%. They drive territorial pressure at 53.0% Corsi—they dictate where play happens. But the Canadiens are running hot with a 1.018 PDO, meaning they're converting at rates they won't sustain. Montreal sits at -11 goal differential over its last 10 games, a warning that regression is coming.

The Senators' edge is structural. Brady Tkachuk carries 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes with 11 goals on a 7.5% shooting rate—a sustainable conversion rate against the quality of his chances. Dylan Cozens produces 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals on 9.5% shooting; his rate sits close enough to expectation that variance could break either way. Neither is shooting hot.

Montreal's power depends on unsustainable finishing. Cole Caufield has 33 goals on just 0.97 xG/60, a chasm between opportunity and results. His 20.0% shooting rate, anchored by just 1 high-danger goal, cannot hold. Oliver Kapanen contributes 0.83 xG/60 with 19 goals—4 from high-danger areas—on 17.8% shooting; he too is running well above what his talent suggests.

The defensive weak links tell you where each team bleeds. Nick Jensen is Ottawa's vulnerability. Mike Matheson is Montreal's. Neither team generates meaningful high-danger or rebound-goal volume—both at 0%—so the game lives in shot volume and the conversion rates that will eventually normalize.

The Senators have built a better team. They do the work Montreal does not. But Montreal is shooting like they're destined to win, and hot teams steal games. The model split it down the middle because the edge is genuinely thin. It probably is.