Backcheck
Recap · DAL at TOR

Stars run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 11:48 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
DAL
Dallas Stars
6
Home
TOR
Toronto Maple Leafs
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.94Expected goals2.40
62% share for the better side
33Shot attempts (SOG)27
5High-danger chances1
57Corsi (all attempts)51
Score-adjusted: 56% / 44%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Stars dominated the underlying metrics in a 6-5 win, controlling 62% of expected goals (3.94–2.40) while generating five times as many high-danger chances (5–1). Yet Toronto's efficiency muted the gap: the Leafs overperformed their xG by 2.60 goals, nearly matching Dallas's output despite inferior play.

The disparities were stark. Shot attempts favored Dallas 33–27, and the Maple Leafs mustered just 0.047 expected goals per shot attempt versus Dallas's 0.069—a marked quality-of-chances gap. The Stars converted 40% of their high-danger opportunities. Toronto was lethal from the rush, scoring twice on 27 chances; Dallas cashed four goals on 28 rushing looks.

Both teams benefited from variance. Dallas overperformed its xG by 2.06 goals, but the Leafs' fortune was the more dramatic outlier: 2.60 goals better than expected is elite finishing or the luck of a thousand bounces.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DAL2 / 5 · 1.15 xG
TOR1 / 1 · 0.25 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DAL4 / 20 · 2.26 xG
TOR4 / 14 · 1.61 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DAL0 / 32 · 0.52 xG
TOR0 / 36 · 0.55 xG

TOR went 4-for-14 from medium danger on 1.61 expected goals — 2.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DAL
6 G · 3.94 xG · +2.1
TOR
5 G · 2.40 xG · +2.6
01234567
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. DeSmithDAL
-2.6
A. AkhtyamovTOR
-1.1

DAL finished +2.1 against expected, TOR +2.6 — C. DeSmith (DAL) allowed 2.6 more goals than expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DAL
WRIST3/25
SNAP2/10
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER1/11
TOR
WRIST3/24
SNAP0/5
TIP IN0/1
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/2
DEFLECTED1/1
BAT1/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/11
DAL
TOR
Off the rush
4 G on 28 · 2.65 xG
2 G on 27 · 1.77 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 4 · 0.72 xG
3 G on 4 · 0.52 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 3-for-25, TOR 3-for-24. DAL scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Bourque
#22 · C · DAL
3 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 15:56 TOI · +1
W. Nylander
#88 · R · TOR
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 22:50 TOI · -1
M. Duchene
#95 · C · DAL
0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 18:36 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • C. DeSmith (DAL) gave up 2.6 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • DAL had the higher quality looks — 0.069 xG/shot vs 0.047.
  • DAL was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/5 on HD chances (40%).
  • TOR was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 27 rush chances.
  • DAL was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 28 rush chances.
  • TOR created 4 rebound opportunities (3 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • DAL created 4 rebound opportunities (2 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • TOR outperformed their expected goals by 2.6 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
  • DAL outperformed their expected goals by 2.1 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · DAL at TOR · 7:30 PM ET

Stars at Maple Leafs: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 11:30 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
DAL
Model favorite
53%
47%
DAL50TOR

DAL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.52.4 TOR; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

DAL← edge
edge →TOR
51.0%5v5 xG%46.0%
47.0%Corsi%45.0%
2.36xGF / 602.24
2.29xGA / 602.67
2.07Goals for / gm2.09
1.68Goals against / gm2.52
1.024PDO — luck, not skill1.002

DAL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.024 vs 1.002) says DAL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Dallas owns the underlying play—51.0% 5v5 expected goals to Toronto's 46.0%—and the model gives them a 53% win probability. Expected score: 2.5 to 2.4. That's as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The form check reinforces it. The Stars are 5-4-1 over their last 10; Toronto is underwater at -17 goal differential in the same stretch. But Dallas's results are running ahead of what structure alone would produce. Their PDO sits at 1.024—luck is elevating their finish—and they've recorded 0% of their goals on high-danger chances and 0% on rebounds. That run stops eventually.

Toronto's real problem isn't luck; it's depth. Auston Matthews hasn't played in 32 days and is likely out, removing their most dangerous player—1.10 xG/60, 17 goals, 1 high-danger marker. John Tavares fills the void at 0.91 xG/60 with 15 goals and 24 assists, including 3 high-danger goals, and his 12.4% shooting rate is sustainable.

Dallas rides Jason Robertson. He generates 0.96 xG/60, has 25 goals and 21 assists, and has buried 2 high-danger chances at 12.4% shooting. Michael Bunting shares the load at 0.83 xG/60 with 8 goals and 14 assists, though his 7.6% shooting looks stretched. Bo Groulx is Toronto's defensive weak link; Tyler Myers is Dallas's.

The model's near-even split is justified. Superiority in play is offset by unsustainable results and the absence of Toronto's best player. This is genuinely a coin flip.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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