Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · BOS at OTT

Senators hold off the Bruins

The verdict · earned

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

BOS 3 · OTT 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:50 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

Ottawa's 5-3 victory masks a closer underlying contest—the Senators controlled just 55% of expected goals (2.86–2.34), but offensive execution separated them. They overperformed their xG by 2.14 goals, evidence of either elite finishing or variance favorable to the Senators.

The Senators controlled 51% of shot attempts (22–21 on goal) and dominated the overall shot profile. High-danger chances, though, favored Boston: the Bruins created four while the Senators generated three, suggesting the Senators' edge came from elsewhere.

Where it came from: execution. The Senators scored four goals on nineteen rush chances; the Bruins converted one of three rebound opportunities. The goaltending gap mattered: J. Korpisalo (BOS) gave up 1.1 more goals than expected while L. Meriläinen (OTT) underperformed by 0.66.

Tim Stützle's wrist shot from the doorstep at 19:42 of the third captured the Senators' evening: not the most dangerous chance, but clinical when it counted.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 13
BOS
3
OTT
5

Senators hold off the Bruins

Chances 2.3 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
BOS
2.34
OTT
2.86
45% of the chances55%

The board read BOS 3, OTT 5. The chances read BOS 2.3, OTT 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+2.1
goals above expected
OTT2.86 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS2.34 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators scored 2.1 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:28OTTC. GirouxPP0–1
  2. P1 19:03OTTD. Cozens0–2
  3. P2 11:49BOSM. Geekie1–2
  4. P3 01:06OTTS. Pinto1–3
  5. P3 03:49BOSD. PastrnakPP2–3
  6. P3 05:15BOSM. Kastelic3–3
  7. P3 14:17OTTT. Stützle3–4
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BOS
32 shots
3
Final
63 shots
OTT
31 shots
5
BOS attackOTT attack
BOS OTT Goal
32
shots · 3 in
31
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BOSOTT
3 / 4
0.76 xG
High danger
2 / 3
1.62 xG
0 / 10
1.13 xG
Medium
3 / 6
0.69 xG
0 / 37
0.44 xG
Low
0 / 41
0.55 xG

The Senators buried 2 of 3 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
L. Meriläinen
−0.7
OTT · 18/21
D-
J. Korpisalo
−1.1
BOS · 17/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators 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 4–10
  1. 01:28OTTC. Girouxpower play(T. Stützle, D. Cozens)0–1
  2. 19:03OTTD. Cozens(F. Zetterlund, R. Greig)0–2
2ndshots 10–4
  1. 11:49BOSM. Geekie(D. Pastrnak, M. Khusnutdinov)1–2
3rdshots 7–8
  1. 01:06OTTS. Pinto(M. Amadio, J. Sanderson)1–3
  2. 03:49BOSD. Pastrnakpower play(M. Geekie, V. Arvidsson)2–3
  3. 05:15BOSM. Kastelic(T. Jeannot)3–3
  4. 14:17OTTT. Stützle(D. Batherson, A. Zub)3–4
  5. 19:42OTTT. Stützleempty net(C. Giroux, N. Matinpalo)3–5

score reads BOS–OTT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.86
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.041
OTT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
49.5%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.34Expected goals2.86
OTT 55% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal22
4High-danger chances3
51All attempts (Corsi)50
Adjusted for score: BOS 55% · OTT 45%
Faceoffs · OTT won58%off50%neu83%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BOS3 / 4 · 0.76 xG
OTT2 / 3 · 1.62 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BOS0 / 10 · 1.13 xG
OTT3 / 6 · 0.69 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BOS0 / 37 · 0.44 xG
OTT0 / 41 · 0.55 xG

OTT went 3-for-6 from medium danger on 0.69 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BOS
3 G · 2.34 xG · +0.7
OTT
5 G · 2.86 xG · +2.1
0123456

BOS finished +0.7 against expected, OTT +2.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BOS
WRIST2/21
SLAP1/4
BACKHAND0/4
SNAP0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
TIP IN0/0
OTHER0/19
OTT
WRIST2/16
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/4
SNAP2/5
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
TIP IN1/1
OTHER0/19
BOS
OTT
Off the rush
1 G on 16
0.99 xG
4 G on 19
2.53 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 3
0.47 xG
0 G on 1
0.05 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BOS went 2-for-21, OTT 2-for-16. OTT scored 4 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
J. Korpisalo
BOS · 17/21 · .810
-1.1
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/31.6-0.4
Medium3/60.7-2.3
Low0/410.6+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

L. Meriläinen
OTT · 18/21 · .857
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/40.8-2.2
Medium0/101.1+1.1
Low0/370.4+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

63 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
BOS
32 shots
3
Final
63 shots
OTT
31 shots
5
BOS attackOTT attack
BOS OTT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — BOS left, OTT 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
T. Stützle
#18 · C · OTT
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:52 on ice · +2
D. Pastrnak
#88 · R · BOS
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:05 on ice
M. Geekie
#39 · 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 Thu, Nov 13
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:48 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

The predictive models favor Ottawa. The Senators own a 59% win probability in a projected 2.3-2.8 goal margin — not a blowout, but a clear edge rooted in process.

The underlying play belongs to Ottawa entirely. The Senators control 56.0% of expected goals at 5v5 while Boston manages just 47.0%. Possession tells the same story: Ottawa's 53.0% Corsi advantage means territorial tilt in their favor throughout.

Boston's numbers mask a fragility that regression will exploit. The Bruins' 1.023 PDO — outperforming their expected shooting and save rates by three percentage points — has inflated their actual results. The Senators' 0.993 PDO cuts the opposite direction, suggesting positive variance if they continue generating opportunities.

Viktor Arvidsson carries Boston's offensive load: 1.04 expected goals per 60 minutes puts him in the upper tier of this matchup, backed by 18 goals and an unsustainable 13.0% shooting rate. Tanner Jeannot operates at a lower volume (0.75 xG/60) and smaller sample (6 goals on 8.3% shooting), making him the secondary threat to contain.

Brady Tkachuk is Ottawa's focal point. His 1.19 xG/60 leads all four players; 11 goals on a sustainable 7.5% shooting rate shows he's converting at baseline efficiency. Dylan Cozens matches Arvidsson's output per opportunity (1.00 xG/60) and edges him in goal total (13 to 18), though Cozens' 9.5% shooting will likely normalize downward over time.

The verdict hinges on whether Boston can sustain PDO luck in the face of inferior underlying metrics. Ottawa's model advantage exists before the puck drops — it's built on the gap between what each team generates and what it allows. The Senators' lean becomes clearer if regression arrives on schedule.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 59%
59%
OTT
Model favorite
41%
59%
BOS50OTT

OTT by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score BOS 2.3–2.8 OTT; 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
BOS← edge
edge →OTT
47.0%56.0%
49.0%53.0%
2.392.66
2.672.12
2.222.18
1.821.99
1.0230.993

OTT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.023 vs 0.993) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
BOS
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
OTT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.023
BOS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
OTT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next