Motion-blurred skater in a gold and black sweater

Breakdown · CHI at BOS

Bruins edge the Blackhawks in overtime

Final / OTThu, Oct 9

CHIChicago Blackhawks3 BOSBoston Bruins4

The verdict · earned

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

CHI 3 · BOS 4

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:04 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited 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

Boston's 4-3 overtime victory over Chicago was built on a quality advantage that extended far beyond the final shot count. The Bruins generated 60% of expected goals (4.12–2.75 xG) while holding a 58% share of shot attempts (33–24). More importantly, they were significantly more efficient: each Bruins shot carried 0.074 expected goals compared to Chicago's 0.054—a gap that reflects their dominance in creating dangerous chances.

The Bruins converted this advantage ruthlessly where it mattered most. They scored on 40% of their high-danger chances (2 of 5) and were lethal on the rush, netting 3 goals on 29 opportunities. Chicago, despite outshooting Boston on the rush (3 goals on 23 chances), couldn't replicate that efficiency across the full ice surface.

Fraser Minten's snap shot from the high slot with 2:12 remaining in overtime provided the margin. It was the kind of chance—from the danger area—that Boston created with relentless consistency throughout the night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Oct 9

CHI

BOS

Bruins edge the Blackhawks in overtime

Chances 2.8 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Bruins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

2.75

BOS

4.12

40% of the chances60%

The board read CHI 3, BOS 4. The chances read CHI 2.8, BOS 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

BOS

−0.1

goals above expected

BOS4.12 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

CHI2.75 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 03:53BOSC. Mittelstadt0–1
P1 08:19CHIC. Bedard1–1
P2 02:22CHIL. Crevier2–1
P2 09:10BOST. Jeannot2–2
P3 00:15BOSE. LindholmPP2–3
P3 02:22CHIA. Burakovsky3–3
OT 02:12BOSF. Minten3–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

CHI

35 shots

Final

83 shots

BOS

48 shots

CHI BOS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHIBOS

0 / 3

0.64 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.09 xG

2 / 14

1.73 xG

Medium

2 / 23

2.67 xG

1 / 34

0.38 xG

Low

0 / 28

0.36 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A. Soderblom

+0.1

CHI · 29/33

J. Korpisalo

−0.3

BOS · 21/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Bruins edge the Blackhawks in overtime

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 / 08 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 7–11

03:53BOSC. Mittelstadt0–1
08:19CHIC. Bedard(A. Burakovsky, C. Dach)1–1

2ndshots 8–7

02:22CHIL. Crevier(C. Bedard, N. Foligno)2–1
09:10BOST. Jeannot(M. Eyssimont, H. Jokiharju)2–2

3rdshots 6–13

00:15BOSE. Lindholmpower play(P. Zacha, D. Pastrnak)2–3
02:22CHIA. Burakovsky(A. Levshunov, F. Nazar)3–3

OTshots 3–2

02:12BOSF. Minten3–4

score reads CHI–BOS

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.12

BOS chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.013

BOS puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

52.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.75Expected goals4.12

BOS 60% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal33

3High-danger chances5

51All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: CHI 48% · BOS 52%

Faceoffs · BOS won52%off40%neu82%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI0 / 3 · 0.64 xG

BOS2 / 5 · 1.09 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI2 / 14 · 1.73 xG

BOS2 / 23 · 2.67 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI1 / 34 · 0.38 xG

BOS0 / 28 · 0.36 xG

BOS went 2-for-5 from high danger on 1.09 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

3 G · 2.75 xG · +0.3

BOS

4 G · 4.12 xG · -0.1

012345

CHI finished +0.3 against expected, BOS -0.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

SNAP1/3

WRIST1/26

TIP IN0/3

SLAP1/1

BACKHAND0/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/16

BOS

SNAP3/33

WRIST1/4

TIP IN0/5

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/8

CHI

BOS

Off the rush

3 G on 23

2.19 xG

3 G on 29

2.61 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.24 xG

1 G on 5

1.04 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CHI went 1-for-3, BOS 3-for-33. CHI scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

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

A. Soderblom

CHI · 29/33 · .879

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.1-0.9

Medium2/232.7+0.7

Low0/280.4+0.4

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

J. Korpisalo

BOS · 21/24 · .875

-0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.6+0.6

Medium2/141.7-0.3

Low1/340.4-0.6

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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

35 shots

Final

83 shots

BOS

48 shots

CHI BOS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, BOS 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

C. Bedard

#98 · C · —

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:54 on ice · +1

A. Burakovsky

#28 · L · —

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:41 on ice

P. Zacha

#18 · C · —

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:31 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:07 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

The model projects Boston to win at 55%, with a likely final around 3.0–3.3 for Chicago. That lean is built on underlying play: the Bruins command 46.7% expected goals at 5v5 against Chicago's 43.5%, and control territory at 49.0% Corsi.

The risk is regression. Boston's 1.022 PDO means actual goals are running ahead of shot quality. That premium typically compresses as the season progresses. Chicago sits at 0.996 PDO—nearly neutral.

Boston must neutralize Tyler Bertuzzi, Chicago's 20-goal winger generating 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes with 7 high-danger chances. Chicago's task is Viktor Arvidsson, the Bruins' offensive fulcrum: 1.04 xG/60, 18 goals and 24 assists, with 2 high-danger goals.

Chicago has secondary scoring in Connor Bedard. The 17-goal center operates at 0.82 xG/60 with 5 high-danger opportunities and an 11.8% shooting rate—room for stabilization on a rate stat. Boston counters with Tanner Jeannot: 6 goals on 0.75 xG/60, depth with upside depending on matchups.

Boston's edge is structural. The Bruins own shot play and territory. Chicago's upset scenario requires Bertuzzi and Bedard to sustain their current rates while Boston's PDO regresses toward the middle—plausible, but not the model's lean.

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BOS 55%

55%

BOS

Model favorite

45%

55%

CHI50BOS

BOS by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CHI 3.0–3.3 BOS; 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

CHI← edge

edge →BOS

43.5%46.7%

46.0%49.0%

2.622.97

3.403.39

2.563.27

3.293.01

0.9961.022

BOS holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 vs 1.022) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

CHI

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

BOS

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.022

BOS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALBOS

Shutdown Assignment: Bruins

Key matchup: Neutralize Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 0.85 xG/60, 7 HD goals)

TACTICALCHI

Shutdown Assignment: Blackhawks

Key matchup: Neutralize Viktor Arvidsson (18G, 1.04 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

WARNINGCHI

Exploitable minutes: Anton Frondell

Anton Frondell is on ice for 4.31 xGA/60 and 12 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Anton Frondell's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGBOS

Exploitable minutes: Elias Lindholm

Elias Lindholm is on ice for 2.80 xGA/60 and 40 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Elias Lindholm's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Bruins own the underlying play — 46.7% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.
The Bruins drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Bruins' PDO is 1.022 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Bruins own the underlying play — 46.7% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.
The Bruins drive Corsi at 49.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Bruins' PDO is 1.022 — running hot, expect some regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A

0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh

Connor Bedard17G 27A

0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh

BOS

Viktor Arvidsson18G 24A

1.04 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh

Tanner Jeannot6G 14A

0.75 xG/60 · 2 HD · 8.3% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page