xJawn NHL expected goals

← Games

Save a card: Summary · Full card · Game flow · TOR skaters · EDM skaters · TOR lines · EDM lines · Matchups
Final · Oct 24, 2026
2026-27 · regular season
The call
EDM 63.4% ✗
expected 2.84–3.66 · TOR won 7–2
actual xG
3.23–3.04
xG share, predicted → actual
TOR 44% → 52%56% → 48% EDM
Today's puzzle Remember Some Guys — name the skater from the shape of his career. Three clues, one guess a day. Play →
Adjusts with rink filters

Strength and score are read from TOR's side, the same minutes at both ends: PP = TOR power play · PK = EDM power play · Leading = TOR ahead · ST = each club's own power play.

TOR attacks◀ all strengths
EDM attacksall strengths ▶
× goal• on net ◦ missed· blocked hover any attempt for the shooter, its xG and everything the model saw
How to read this map

One rink, both teams: TOR attacks the left net, EDM the right. Every attempt is a Gaussian bump of height = its model xG. The controls switch the surface (xG heatmap ↔ vs league) and the markers; vs league compares this game against a typical NHL team-game under the same filter (2026-27 regular season, 176 games), so a 5v5 view is measured against league 5v5.

A strength or score filter is read from TOR's side and mirrored for EDM: “TOR PP” shows TOR's power-play attempts on the left and EDM's shorthanded attempts on the right — the same minutes of the game at both ends. Empty-net attempts are excluded unless you include them. The Player control narrows the map and the rows beneath it to the attempts by either club while one player was on the ice (for a goalie, while he was in net); his own attempts wear a blue ring. vs league switches off while a player is picked — the league baseline is a whole team-game, which one player's slice is not. Hover any attempt for the shooter, the result, its xG, and the inputs behind it: clock, strength, score, shot type, distance, angle, handedness, rush/rebound, what happened just before, and the goalie or the blocker.

What each side produced

all strengths · regular season
TOR EDM
bars share a scale within each row · the longer bar is the row's leader
Goalson the map
6 2
Expected goals
3.24 3.04
xG%share of xG
52% 48%
High-dangerattempts ≥ 0.20 xG
2 1
Shots on goal
31 32
Attempts
58 68
xG by period · whole game 1st1.0–1.12nd1.1–1.03rd1.1–1.0

The Maple Leafs beat the Oilers 7–2 on the road in a game the chances called about even, TOR 3.2 to EDM 3.0 in expected goals. TOR scored 6 on 3.2 expected, before the empty-netter.

Counts come from the shot table behind the map: empty-net attempts and the shootout are excluded, so the goals here can trail the official final by an empty-netter or the shootout's deciding goal. Same numbers as the post-game cards.

As the game went

cumulative TOR − EDM xG · bands = power plays · lines = goals
1ST2ND3RD+0.5−0.5+1−1TOR AHEAD ▲EDM AHEAD ▼
How to read this

One line: cumulative TOR minus EDM expected goals. Above zero TOR is ahead on chances, below zero EDM is. Shaded bands are power plays in the side's colour; vertical lines are goals.

Skaters

on-ice xG · sorted by net · one game
How to read this

Every skater, sorted by net on-ice expected goals: on-ice xG against to the left of zero, for to the right, his own attempts as the solid bar, a hash at the net. The slim track under the name is ice time.

TOR
against for own net ice time
0.50.5111.51.5220Zack MacEwenF9:39+0.90Brandon DuhaimeF13:29+0.68Teddy BluegerF14:36+0.56Vinni LettieriF10:57+0.32Gavin McKennaF11:29+0.31Darren RaddyshD21:39+0.29Kirill MarchenkoF15:47+0.19Dakota MermisD14:22+0.14Jake McCabeD21:40+0.03Oliver Ekman-LarssonD19:09+0.01Colton SissonsF15:30+0.00Morgan RiellyD18:51-0.01Troy StecherD24:21-0.10Nick PaulF15:59-0.16Easton CowanF15:20-0.20Auston MatthewsF17:13-0.26William NylanderF15:59-0.26Jack RoslovicF15:37-0.72
EDM
against for own net ice time
0.50.5111.51.5222.52.50Evan BouchardD26:11+1.11Ryan SheaD25:33+1.10Connor McDavidF22:27+0.36Colton DachF10:10+0.22Zach HymanF18:28+0.21Max JonesF8:08+0.20Leon DraisaitlF20:59+0.15Filip HallanderF8:30+0.09Ryan Nugent-HopkinsF18:56-0.08Vasily PodkolzinF16:39-0.31Mathieu JosephF13:52-0.36Alex FormentonF12:49-0.36Ty EmbersonD14:39-0.42Owen MichaelsF13:24-0.46Kasperi KapanenF15:23-0.51Shakir MukhamadullinD17:28-0.56Jake WalmanD14:32-0.76Connor MurphyD17:53-0.91

Lines & pairs

most-used 5v5 units · when they played · on-ice xG
How to read this

The forward lines and defence pairs that actually played together most at 5v5, each with when it was on the ice across the game clock (period and power-play bands behind the strip) and on-ice xG against/for while the whole unit was out.

TOR
on ice power play penalty kill xGA xGF
FORWARD LINESL1Nick PaulWilliam NylanderKirill Marchenko12:08+0.06L2Jack RoslovicAuston MatthewsEaston Cowan12:00+0.16L3Colton SissonsVinni LettieriGavin McKenna8:53+0.25L4Teddy BluegerBrandon DuhaimeZack MacEwen8:23+0.87DEFENCE PAIRSD1Jake McCabeDarren Raddysh15:29+0.61D2Morgan RiellyTroy Stecher14:46+0.05D3Oliver Ekman-LarssonDakota Mermis11:34+0.021ST2ND3RD022
EDM
on ice power play penalty kill xGA xGF
FORWARD LINESL1Leon DraisaitlConnor McDavidVasily Podkolzin12:34-0.29L2Zach HymanRyan Nugent-HopkinsKasperi Kapanen10:54-0.37L3Mathieu JosephAlex FormentonOwen Michaels10:43-0.34L4Max JonesFilip HallanderColton Dach6:21+0.22DEFENCE PAIRSD1Ty EmbersonShakir Mukhamadullin12:13-0.53D2Ryan SheaEvan Bouchard11:46+1.12D3Connor MurphyJake Walman5:36-0.701ST2ND3RD01.51.5

Matchups

5v5 · every skater against every skater, goalies first · hover a cell
TOR won the chances EDM won them full colour = a margin of 0.75 xG or more taller = more time together (full height at 12:00) on together, dead even never on together G = goalie: his row or column is each skater against the whole other team
StolarzPaulNylanderMarchenkoRoslovicMatthewsCowanSissonsLettieriMcKennaBluegerDuhaimeMacEwenMcCabeRaddyshRiellyStecherEkman-LarssonMermisJarryDraisaitlMcDavidPodkolzinHymanNugent-HopkinsKapanenJosephFormentonMichaelsJonesHallanderDachEmbersonMukhamadullinSheaBouchardMurphyWalmanGL1L2L3L4D1D2D3GL1L2L3L4D1D2D3
How to read this

Rows are TOR's skaters, columns EDM's, grouped the way they played: forward lines (L1 = the line that played together most), then defence pairs. Each cell covers the five-on-five time those two players shared the ice. Its colour is the club that out-chanced the other in that time — expected goals for minus against — and the stronger the colour, the bigger the margin. Each cell is also raised: the taller the block, the longer the two shared the ice, up to full height at 12:00 of five-on-five time. A grey cell means they met and it came out even; an open, flat one means they never met at five-on-five.

The first row and column are the goalies. A goalie is in net for every five-on-five second, so a skater's cell against the other side's goalie is all of that skater's five-on-five time against that team — the rest of his row or column added up — and the corner where the two goalies meet is the game's five-on-five. Those cells cover far more time than any pair, so they reach full colour sooner and stand at full height, a wall along each edge of the grid. A goalie change adds a second goalie row or column, each covering his own time.

Linemates share the ice, so a line against a line reads as a block. The margin is a total, not a rate: a long matchup has room to build a big gap and a thirty-second one does not — which is what the height is there to show: a tall, strong cell is the game's story; a short, strong one is a moment. Hover (or tap) any cell for the exact time together, the xG each way, attempts and goals. One game — a strong cell is what happened, not what would happen again.

Goals

xG = the chance, before it went in
TeamScorerPeriodTimexG
TORJack Roslovic 1st14:16 0.62
TORAuston Matthews 2nd5:29 0.12
TORTroy Stecher 2nd6:23 0.13
TORWilliam Nylander 3rd5:59 PP 0.09
TORZack MacEwen 3rd13:39 0.60
TORWilliam Nylander 3rd17:56 EN 0.40
TORVinni Lettieri 3rd19:29 0.07
EDMLeon Draisaitl 2nd19:04 0.03
EDMLeon Draisaitl 3rd16:35 PP 0.16

The prediction, scored

Before puck drop the engine made EDM a 63.4% favorite, expecting a 2.84–3.66 game — TOR won 7–2, so the call missed. Every number in this section was issued before the game and is never re-graded.

pred. xGactual xG pred. 5v5actual 5v5 pred. STactual PP
TOR 2.843.23 1.842.86 0.740.09
EDM 3.663.04 2.341.89 1.050.60

Predicted 5v5 / special-teams portions come from the predicted map's strength splits (one shared scale per team pins the all-strengths total to its expected goals), so they don't sum exactly — the remainder is 4v4, 3v3, and other mixed states. The actual columns are the card's own counts (empty-net attempts excluded); the actual PP column is power-play xG only, the same bucket the predicted map's special-teams view draws.

The pregame score grid

The likeliest finals the engine saw before the game, with what actually happened marked — ■ TOR · ■ EDM.

Likeliest finals (TOR–EDM)probability
3–3 6.6% tied after regulation — OT/SO decides
2–2 5.8% tied after regulation — OT/SO decides
2–4 4.8%
4–4 4.3% tied after regulation — OT/SO decides
1–3 3.7%
7–2 0.3% what happened
6.0%2.6%016.8%9.4%123.6%17.1%222.1%20.7%315.7%19.1%49.0%14.2%54.3%8.8%61.8%4.7%70.9%3.4%8+

Scoreline odds are the engine's own grid: each team's goals as a Poisson count, with the fitted adjustment for how often games end tied after regulation (ρ = 0.35), so these odds and the headline win probability come from the same numbers. The OT/SO layer is a separate fitted model and is already inside the headline win probability.

The pregame read

The engine made EDM a 63.4% favorite — EDM controls 56.4% of the predicted xG. Of TOR's 2.84 expected goals, 1.84 should come at 5v5 and 0.74 on the power play; EDM projects 2.34 at 5v5 and 1.05 on the power play. The logistic challenger put the home side at 65.4%, Elo at 64.0%.

Why EDM 63.4%
win chance× expected goals
5v5 play +11.2 EDM ×1.12 · TOR ×0.91
home ice +3.8 EDM ×1.08 · TOR ×1.00
goaltending −2.8 EDM ×0.95 · TOR ×1.01
schedule +1.1 EDM ×1.01 · TOR ×0.98
special teams +0.7 EDM ×1.01 · TOR ×1.00
finishing −0.2 EDM ×1.08 · TOR ×1.10

Win chance is in points toward EDM (bars right of the line push toward EDM, left toward TOR). Each win-chance number is one-at-a-time: that piece reset to league average (neutral ice, a typical night's rest) on both sides and the game re-priced; the pieces interact, so they don't add up to the call. The multipliers are exact: a league-average team on neutral ice, on a typical night's rest, would expect 2.88 goals in this game, and each side's expected goals is that times its column of multipliers. Special teams reads small because the engine's power-play terms fit near zero, not because special teams don't matter.

Where the engine expected the goals

The predicted surface, issued before puck drop — not this game's shots (those are the card's map above). TOR attacks the left net, EDM the right; each end multiplies where the attacking team generates xG this season by where its opponent concedes it, scaled so each end totals the engine's expected goals. Actual shots lays the game's unblocked attempts on top: × goals, • on net, ◦ missed.

Tale of the tape

How each team fares on its own, season to date: per-game xG rates with league rank (of 32). Rank 1 is best on every row — orange ranks sit in the top third of the league, gray in the bottom third.

TOREDM
2.91 (18th) Offense
xG for / game
2.94 (16th)
3.34 (28th) Defense
xG against / game
2.72 (11th)
0.79 (12th) Power play
PP xG / game
0.92 (5th)
0.81 (22nd) Penalty kill
PP xG conceded / game
0.65 (10th)

Season-to-date form as of the site's latest build, shown for context — the ratings the engine actually used were its own as-of-game-day state. Replay this matchup in the lab →