Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
Breakdown · FLA at BOS

Panthers hold off the Bruins

The verdict · coin flip

The Panthers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

FLA 4 · BOS 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:35 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

The Bruins held 57 percent of shot attempts — 31 to 23 — yet expected goals said the game was a toss-up. They lost 4-3.

The scoreline overstates Florida's edge. Expected goals split 3.57–3.73, nearly even. Boston's shot volume didn't translate to dangerous chances; the Bruins averaged 0.057 xG per attempt while the Panthers managed 0.085. High-danger looks went 7–6 Florida's way.

S. Bobrovsky stopped 28 of 31 (0.903 SV%), outperforming his expected level by 0.57 goals. J. Swayman stopped 19 of 23 (0.826 SV%), a save rate that made every shot costly.

Boston's power play was dominant — 2 goals on 13 shots (0.82 xG). But five-on-five, the Panthers prevailed. Both teams converted rushes at nearly the same rate (Boston 2-of-26, Florida 3-of-24). High-danger finishing separated them: Florida 3-of-6 (50%), Boston 2-of-7.

In the third, Carter Verhaeghe's wrist shot from the high slot at 19:34 put the Panthers ahead.

Three Stars:

  • D. Pastrnak (BOS) — 2A in 23:05
  • B. Marchand (FLA) — 2A in 19:38
  • P. Zacha (BOS) — 1G, 1A in 19:10
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 21
FLA
4
BOS
3

Panthers hold off the Bruins

Chances 3.7 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Panthers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
3.73
BOS
3.57
51% of the chances49%

The board read FLA 4, BOS 3. The chances read FLA 3.7, BOS 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
+0.3
goals above expected
FLA3.73 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS3.57 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
  1. P1 01:01FLAM. SamoskevichPP1–0
  2. P2 02:01FLAA. Greer2–0
  3. P3 02:46BOSP. Zacha2–1
  4. P3 04:46BOSE. LindholmPP2–2
  5. P3 09:58FLAE. Luostarinen3–2
  6. P3 18:29BOSM. GeekiePP3–3
  7. P3 19:34FLAC. Verhaeghe4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
36 shots
4
Final
81 shots
BOS
45 shots
3
FLA attackBOS attack
FLA BOS Goal
36
shots · 4 in
45
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLABOS
3 / 6
1.64 xG
High danger
2 / 7
1.65 xG
1 / 15
1.77 xG
Medium
1 / 9
1.14 xG
0 / 23
0.32 xG
Low
0 / 47
0.77 xG

The Panthers buried 3 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
S. Bobrovsky
+0.6
FLA · 28/31
D
J. Swayman
−0.3
BOS · 19/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers hold off the Bruins

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 7–6
  1. 01:01FLAM. Samoskevichpower play(B. Marchand, A. Lundell)1–0
2ndshots 9–13
  1. 02:01FLAA. Greer(J. Gadjovich)2–0
3rdshots 7–12
  1. 02:46BOSP. Zacha(C. Mittelstadt, V. Arvidsson)2–1
  2. 04:46BOSE. Lindholmpower play(D. Pastrnak, P. Zacha)2–2
  3. 09:58FLAE. Luostarinen(B. Marchand, A. Ekblad)3–2
  4. 18:29BOSM. Geekiepower play(C. Mittelstadt, D. Pastrnak)3–3
  5. 19:34FLAC. Verhaeghe(S. Bennett, G. Forsling)4–3

score reads FLA–BOS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.73
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.043
FLA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.73Expected goals3.57
FLA 51% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal31
6High-danger chances7
44All attempts (Corsi)63
Adjusted for score: FLA 37% · BOS 63%
Faceoffs · BOS won63%off46%neu60%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA3 / 6 · 1.64 xG
BOS2 / 7 · 1.65 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA1 / 15 · 1.77 xG
BOS1 / 9 · 1.14 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA0 / 23 · 0.32 xG
BOS0 / 47 · 0.77 xG

FLA went 3-for-6 from high danger on 1.64 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
4 G · 3.73 xG · +0.3
BOS
3 G · 3.57 xG · -0.6
012345

FLA finished +0.3 against expected, BOS -0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
WRIST2/6
SNAP2/13
BACKHAND0/10
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/5
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/8
BOS
WRIST2/25
SNAP0/7
BACKHAND0/0
SLAP0/9
TIP IN1/1
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/18
FLA
BOS
Off the rush
3 G on 24
2.62 xG
2 G on 26
2.41 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.54 xG
1 G on 6
0.78 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 2-for-6, BOS 2-for-25. FLA 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
S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 28/31 · .903
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.6-0.3
Medium1/91.1+0.1
Low0/470.8+0.8

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. Swayman
BOS · 19/23 · .826
-0.3
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/61.6-1.4
Medium1/151.8+0.8
Low0/230.3+0.3

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
36 shots
4
Final
81 shots
BOS
45 shots
3
FLA attackBOS attack
FLA BOS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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
D. Pastrnak
#88 · R · BOS
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 23:05 on ice
B. Marchand
#63 · L · FLA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:38 on ice · +1
P. Zacha
#18 · C · BOS
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:10 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 21
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:34 PMEdited 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

This is a genuine coin flip: the model projects 2.6–2.6 with the Bruins at exactly 50% win probability. One team dominates the underlying play. The other dominates the scoreboard. Neither advantage is large enough to guarantee victory.

Florida's edge is territorial and measurable. At 52.0% Corsi and 49.0% expected goals percentage, the Panthers generate volume from high-leverage positions. This means extended offensive pressure—stretches where Boston spends more time defending than attacking, wearing down in retreat. Territorial control of this magnitude usually converts to goals if the shooting percentage holds.

Boston's edge is precarious. At 47.0% xG%, they're being outshot and out-chanced relative to play quality. What keeps them competitive is a 1.023 PDO—combined shooting and save percentage running at the edge of plausibility. This will eventually regress. The question is whether it happens tonight.

For Florida, Sam Bennett (0.97 xG/60, 18G, six high-danger goals, 13.1% shooting) generates elite volume at a sustainable rate. He's not riding variance; he's executing. Brad Marchand (17G, 19.5% shooting, three HD goals) operates at a riskier level—his shooting percentage is elite, which means either he's genuinely exceptional or he's borrowed against next month.

Viktor Arvidsson leads Boston at 1.04 xG/60 and 18 goals, but only two come from high-danger areas. He's a volume scorer working at peak efficiency, vulnerable if that efficiency retreats. Tanner Jeannot (0.75 xG/60, 6G) scores at a rate his underlying metrics don't support. If Boston's PDO normalizes, Jeannot normalizes with it.

Both teams register 0% of goals from rebounds and 0% from high-danger areas—an anomaly suggesting either classification inconsistency or a genuine team construction that avoids those scoring sources.

Defensively, vulnerability runs both directions. Brad Marchand is Florida's weak link; Elias Lindholm is Boston's. If the Panthers establish territorial dominance—as the metrics suggest—Lindholm becomes exposed. If Boston forces pace and chaos, Marchand becomes a liability.

The deciding factor is identity. Florida has the underlying advantage; Boston has the scoreboard advantage. Whoever enforces their style for 60 minutes wins. The model, correctly, cannot choose.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BOS 50%
50%
BOS
Model favorite
50%
50%
FLA50BOS

BOS by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 2.6–2.6 BOS; 18% 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
FLA← edge
edge →BOS
49.0%47.0%
52.0%49.0%
2.482.39
2.562.67
1.982.22
2.211.82
0.9891.023

FLA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 vs 1.023) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
FLA
4-6-0
-2 GD · 3d rest
BOS
5-4-1
+3 GD · 2d rest
0.989
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.023
BOS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
FLA
Expected in goal
S. Bobrovsky
3 days rest.903 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BOS
Expected in goal
J. Korpisalo
2 days rest.889 last start
Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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