Motion-blurred skater in a gold and black sweater

Breakdown · DET at BOS

Bruins steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play

Final / OTSat, Nov 29

The verdict · stolen

The Bruins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.56–2.80 and won anyway.

DET 2 · BOS 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:13 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 escaped with a 3–2 shootout win despite ceding 62% of expected goals at 5v5. Detroit controlled play; Boston controlled the scoreboard.

Boston held just 44% of shot attempts (20–26). The xG split confirmed it: 2.80–4.56, a 62–38 divide favoring Detroit. High-danger chances matched, 3–6. A team that dominated every measure lost the shootout. Few outcomes sting worse.

Detroit's problem wasn't rush execution. The Red Wings scored twice on 32 chances—solid production. The real issue: underperformance against expectation. They underperformed their xG by 2.56 goals and converted zero of 3 rebound opportunities. Dominance meant nothing.

Boston's margin came from goaltending and one precise strike. J. Swayman saved 2.56 goals above expected, stopping 24 of 26 at 0.923. C. Talbot didn't fail—0.900 on 20 shots, +0.80 above expectation. Boston's edge was two goals on 26 rush chances, one from Casey Mittelstadt at the doorstep in the shootout.

A team that should have won left with nothing. The Bruins left with two.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Nov 29

DET

BOS

Bruins steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play

Chances 4.6 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

DET

4.56

BOS

2.80

62% of the chances38%

The board read DET 2, BOS 3. The chances read DET 4.6, BOS 2.8.

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

Luck check

BOS

+0.2

goals above expected

BOS2.80 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

DET4.56 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Red Wings left 2.6 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 04:25BOSM. Geekie0–1
P3 06:38DETL. Raymond1–1
P3 13:39BOSM. GeekiePP1–2
P3 18:06DETM. RasmussenPP2–2
SO 00:00BOSC. MittelstadtPP2–2

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

Where the shots came from

DET

48 shots

Final

86 shots

BOS

38 shots

DET BOS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DETBOS

1 / 6

1.35 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.70 xG

1 / 25

2.84 xG

Medium

2 / 14

1.54 xG

0 / 32

0.37 xG

Low

0 / 30

0.56 xG

High-danger looks: DET 1 of 6, BOS 0 of 3.

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

In the net

A+

J. Swayman

+2.6

BOS · 24/26

B+

C. Talbot

+0.8

DET · 18/20

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Bruins steal one from the Red Wings against the run of play

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 4–5no goals

2ndshots 5–9

04:25BOSM. Geekie(E. Lindholm)0–1

3rdshots 13–5

06:38DETL. Raymond(D. Larkin, E. Finnie)1–1
13:39BOSM. Geekiepower play(C. Mittelstadt, E. Lindholm)1–2
18:06DETM. Rasmussenpower play(P. Kane, D. Larkin)2–2

OTshots 4–1no goals

00:00BOSC. Mittelstadtpower play2–2

score reads DET–BOS

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.80

BOS chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.011

BOS puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

42.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.56Expected goals2.80

DET 62% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal20

6High-danger chances3

63All attempts (Corsi)47

Adjusted for score: DET 59% · BOS 41%

Faceoffs · BOS won28%off47%neu67%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DET1 / 6 · 1.35 xG

BOS0 / 3 · 0.70 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DET1 / 25 · 2.84 xG

BOS2 / 14 · 1.54 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DET0 / 32 · 0.37 xG

BOS0 / 30 · 0.56 xG

DET went 1-for-25 from medium danger on 2.84 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DET

2 G · 4.56 xG · -2.6

BOS

3 G · 2.80 xG · +0.2

012345

DET finished -2.6 against expected, BOS +0.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DET

SNAP0/23

TIP IN2/9

WRIST0/8

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/18

BOS

SNAP1/21

TIP IN1/5

WRIST0/3

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/2

OTHER0/11

DET

BOS

Off the rush

2 G on 32

3.54 xG

2 G on 26

1.90 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.37 xG

0 G on 2

0.15 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: DET went 0-for-23, BOS 1-for-21. DET 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

C. Talbot

DET · 18/20 · .900

+0.8

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium2/141.5-0.5

Low0/300.6+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

J. Swayman

BOS · 24/26 · .923

+2.6

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.4+0.3

Medium1/252.8+1.8

Low0/320.4+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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DET

48 shots

Final

86 shots

BOS

38 shots

DET BOS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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. Larkin

#71 · C · DET

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:53 on ice · +2

M. Geekie

#39 · C · BOS

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 16:18 on ice

E. Lindholm

#28 · C · BOS

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 14:52 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 29

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:13 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 Bruins project at 51% win probability in a 2.5–2.6 goal matchup. This is as close to a toss-up as the model offers.

Detroit's fundamental problem is recent execution. They're -10 in goal differential over their last ten games, a concrete signal that close contests aren't breaking their way. The Red Wings generate 49.0% xG at 5v5 and match Boston's 49.0% Corsi%, so the underlying shot quality isn't the issue—it's converting what they create.

Boston's strength comes wrapped in a caveat. They're generating 47.0% xG but sit at 1.023 PDO, meaning their goaltending and finishing are running hot. PDO that high doesn't sustain; expect some regression. Detroit's 0.985 PDO suggests they're due for positive variance.

Both goalies are playing on back-to-backs. J. Korpisalo and J. Gibson carry the same fatigue risk—watch for lineup adjustments or tired first-period effort.

The goal scorers define this game's edges. Alex DeBrincat (17G, 28A, 0.88 xG/60, 9.0% shooting) creates consistent chances for Detroit; Marco Kasper (7G, 8A, 0.81 xG/60, 6.1% shooting) offers depth scoring that misfires relative to his shot rate. For Boston, Viktor Arvidsson (18G, 24A, 1.04 xG/60, 13.0% shooting) is the primary threat, with Tanner Jeannot (6G, 14A, 0.75 xG/60, 8.3% shooting) as the high-volume complementary piece.

Detroit's defensive liability is Axel Sandin-Pellikka. Boston's is Elias Lindholm. Both teams generate 0% hard-chance goals and 0% rebound goals—neither side is capitalizing on second chances, suggesting this is decided by first-chance execution.

Boston's higher probability sits on a thinner margin than the 51% implies. Detroit can win this, and the model knows it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BOS 51%

51%

BOS

Model favorite

49%

51%

DET50BOS

BOS by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DET 2.5–2.6 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

DET← edge

edge →BOS

49.0%47.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.382.39

2.502.67

1.732.22

2.071.82

0.9851.023

BOS holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 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

DET

4-5-1

-10 GD · 1d rest

BOS

5-5-0

-3 GD · 1d rest

0.985

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.023

BOS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

J. Korpisalo is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Gibson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Red Wings are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DET

Expected in goal

J. Gibson

back-to-back.808 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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.

BOS

Expected in goal

J. Korpisalo

back-to-back.861 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.

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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% 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