Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a gold and black sweater
← Fri, Nov 21 · the slate
Breakdown · BOS at LAK

Bruins edge the Kings in overtime

Final / OTFri, Nov 21
BOSBoston Bruins2LAKLos Angeles Kings1
The verdict · stolen

The Bruins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.67–3.49 and won anyway.

BOS 2 · LAK 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:11 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 victory masked a dominant performance by Los Angeles. The Kings controlled the expected goals battle 3.49–2.67, held 55% of shot attempts, and dominated at 5v5 with 57% of xG — yet lost 2-1 in overtime. This was a heist.

The Kings created better chances throughout. They generated four high-danger chances to Boston's three, crashed the net effectively, and created four rebound opportunities with one conversion. At even strength, the gap was stark: 57% of expected goals for a team that finished with a single goal. Boston's 2-1 result does not reflect who controlled play.

What changed the game: goaltending and overtime execution. J. Swayman turned aside 31 of 32 shots for a 0.969 save percentage, stopping 2.49 goals above expected. He stole the show. D. Kuemper made 24 of 26 saves (0.923 SV%), which would normally suffice, but the Kings underperformed their xG by 2.49 goals — they wasted the quality chances they created.

Boston's secondary threat was sharp where it mattered. The Bruins converted 2 of their 34 rush attempts, turning limited possessions into deadly strikes. That efficiency, combined with Swayman's brilliance, survived Los Angeles's superior five-on-five play.

M. Geekie ended it at 2:27 of overtime with a snap shot from the top of the circles.

  • #91 N. Zadorov (BOS) — 2A in 26:19
  • #39 M. Geekie (BOS) — 2G in 14:51
  • #88 D. Pastrnak (BOS) — 1A in 20:01
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 21
BOS
2
LAK
1

Bruins edge the Kings in overtime

Chances 2.7 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
BOS
2.67
LAK
3.49
43% of the chances57%

The board read BOS 2, LAK 1. The chances read BOS 2.7, LAK 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BOS
−0.7
goals above expected
BOS2.67 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK3.49 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings left 2.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P3 08:01BOSM. Geekie1–0
  2. P3 13:03LAKJ. ArmiaSH1–1
  3. OT 02:27BOSM. Geekie2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BOS
47 shots
2
Final
98 shots
LAK
51 shots
1
BOS attackLAK attack
BOS LAK Goal
47
shots · 2 in
51
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BOSLAK
0 / 3
0.65 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.04 xG
1 / 14
1.41 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.79 xG
1 / 44
0.61 xG
Low
0 / 57
0.66 xG

The Kings went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Swayman
+2.5
BOS · 31/32
B
D. Kuemper
+0.7
LAK · 24/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Bruins edge the Kings 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 9–8no goals
    2ndshots 7–9no goals
      3rdshots 7–15
      1. 08:01BOSM. Geekie(A. Steeves, N. Zadorov)1–0
      2. 13:03LAKJ. Armiashorthanded(T. Moore, B. Dumoulin)1–1
      OTshots 3–0
      1. 02:27BOSM. Geekie(D. Pastrnak, N. Zadorov)2–1

      score reads BOS–LAK

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.67
      BOS chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.7
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.020
      BOS puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      44.2%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.67Expected goals3.49
      LAK 57% of the chance quality
      26Shots on goal32
      3High-danger chances4
      61All attempts (Corsi)77
      Adjusted for score: BOS 44% · LAK 56%
      Faceoffs · LAK won70%off80%neu46%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      BOS0 / 3 · 0.65 xG
      LAK0 / 4 · 1.04 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      BOS1 / 14 · 1.41 xG
      LAK1 / 16 · 1.79 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      BOS1 / 44 · 0.61 xG
      LAK0 / 57 · 0.66 xG

      LAK went 0-for-4 from high danger on 1.04 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      BOS
      2 G · 2.67 xG · -0.7
      LAK
      1 G · 3.49 xG · -2.5
      01234

      BOS finished -0.7 against expected, LAK -2.5.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      BOS
      WRIST0/24
      SNAP1/12
      TIP IN0/3
      BACKHAND0/4
      SLAP1/3
      POKE0/1
      OTHER0/14
      LAK
      WRIST0/33
      SNAP0/2
      TIP IN0/6
      BACKHAND1/5
      SLAP0/5
      POKE0/0
      OTHER0/26
      BOS
      LAK
      Off the rush
      2 G on 34
      2.30 xG
      0 G on 22
      2.29 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 0
      0.00 xG
      1 G on 4
      0.61 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: BOS went 0-for-24, LAK 0-for-33. BOS scored 2 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. Swayman
      BOS · 31/32 · .969
      +2.5
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/41.0+1.0
      Medium1/161.8+0.8
      Low0/570.7+0.7

      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

      D. Kuemper
      LAK · 24/26 · .923
      +0.7
      saved above expected
      B
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.7+0.7
      Medium1/141.4+0.4
      Low1/440.6-0.4

      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

      98 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      BOS
      47 shots
      2
      Final
      98 shots
      LAK
      51 shots
      1
      BOS attackLAK attack
      BOS LAK Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — BOS left, LAK 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
      N. Zadorov
      #91 · D · BOS
      0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 26:19 on ice · +2
      M. Geekie
      #39 · C · BOS
      2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 14:51 on ice · +1
      D. Pastrnak
      #88 · R · BOS
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:01 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Fri, Nov 21
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:10 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 computational model likes Los Angeles by a narrow margin: 2.3–2.7 goals in projection, with the Kings at 56% to win. That edge hinges on underlying play, not puck luck.

      The Kings' advantage is elementary. They own 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals against 47.0% for Boston, meaning they generate more dangerous chances. Corsi splits (52.0%–49.0%) confirm territorial control. The Bruins are being outplayed — and their PDO of 1.023 masks that reality. Running 2.3 points above average, Boston's puck luck is borrowed. The Kings' 1.002 sits closer to neutral. When regression hits, that gap compounds.

      Los Angeles enters rested at three days off; Boston has one. That edge should show in the third period. Watch whether J. Korpisalo starts after back-to-back games — fatigue adds friction.

      Viktor Arvidsson runs 1.04 xG per 60 for Boston with 18 goals and a 13.0% shooting rate, cementing him as the Bruins' primary scoring vector. Tanner Jeannot's lower volume (0.75 xG/60) is offset by 8.3% efficiency. For Los Angeles, Alex Laferriere carries 0.87 xG per 60 and 16 goals with two high-danger tallies, suggesting he capitalizes on mistakes. Jared Wright operates in depth: 0.83 xG/60, four assists, no goals yet.

      The Kings' territorial grip and rest advantage should show in the third period. The Bruins' PDO regression risk is present but uncertain — this game could hinge on goaltending or a fluke. Still, the model captures what the scoreboard won't: Boston's luck is running out, and Los Angeles has earned their edge.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      LAK 56%
      56%
      LAK
      Model favorite
      44%
      56%
      BOS50LAK

      LAK by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BOS 2.3–2.7 LAK; 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 →LAK
      47.0%52.0%
      49.0%52.0%
      2.392.42
      2.672.20
      2.221.85
      1.821.71
      1.0231.002

      LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.023 vs 1.002) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      BOS
      7-3-0
      +4 GD · 1d rest
      LAK
      6-3-1
      +3 GD · 3d rest
      1.023
      BOS PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.002
      LAK PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
      • The Kings 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 Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
      • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • J. Korpisalo is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
      • The Kings have 2 more days of rest.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      BOS
      Expected in goal
      J. Korpisalo
      back-to-back.879 last start
      Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 GSAx this season
      Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      LAK
      Expected in goal
      D. Kuemper
      3 days rest.920 last start
      Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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
      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
      LAK
      Alex Laferriere16G 18A
      0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
      Jared Wright0G 4A
      0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page