Backcheck
Recap · STL at BOS

Bruins pull away from the Blues

The Bruins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.88–2.91 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 6:51 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
STL
St. Louis Blues
2
Home
BOS
Boston Bruins
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.88Expected goals2.91
57% share for the better side
39Shot attempts (SOG)27
7High-danger chances5
70Corsi (all attempts)44
Score-adjusted: 67% / 33%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Boston's 5-2 victory disguises a 57-43 control problem. The Blues dominated expected goals 3.88–2.91, yet left empty-handed because the Bruins' finishing and goaltending overwhelmed statistical probability.

The gap started in net. J. Korpisalo stopped 1.88 goals above expected; J. Binnington surrendered 2.09 below. That swing alone accounts for the scoreboard's lie. The Bruins took just 27 shots to St. Louis's 39, and converted 5 high-danger chances to the Blues's 7. By every measure of volume and quality, Boston was outworked. By the goal column, they were not.

Pius Suter's wrist shot from the doorstep (third period, 09:07) epitomized the evening—a low-probability finish executed at the moment it mattered. The Bruins won the rush battle 3 goals on 19 chances; the Blues squandered 9 rebound opportunities for nothing. Crashing the net only counts if you can finish.

  • M. Geekie — 1 goal, 2 assists in 16:42
  • E. Lindholm — 3 assists in 15:37
  • A. Steeves — 1 goal, 1 assist in 16:06

For St. Louis, the loss stings because the underlying play was there. The Blues controlled 57% of expected goals at 5v5 and had more high-danger chances. Underperforming expected goals by 1.88 is not sloppy execution—it's a magnitude of bad luck or goaltending that turns a play-in win into a blowout loss.

Boston rode variance to victory. Whether that variance was elite finishing or fortunate bouncing, the scoreboard read only one way: Bruins 5, Blues 2.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL1 / 7 · 1.59 xG
BOS1 / 5 · 1.27 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL1 / 16 · 1.61 xG
BOS3 / 10 · 1.07 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL0 / 47 · 0.69 xG
BOS1 / 29 · 0.57 xG

BOS went 3-for-10 from medium danger on 1.07 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
2 G · 3.88 xG · -1.9
BOS
5 G · 2.91 xG · +2.1
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. BinningtonSTL
-2.1
J. KorpisaloBOS
+1.9

STL finished -1.9 against expected, BOS +2.1 — J. Binnington (STL) allowed 2.1 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST1/12
SNAP1/28
SLAP0/9
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/12
BOS
WRIST2/22
SNAP2/4
SLAP1/7
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/8
STL
BOS
Off the rush
1 G on 29 · 2.03 xG
3 G on 19 · 1.46 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 9 · 1.28 xG
1 G on 5 · 1.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 1-for-12, BOS 2-for-22. BOS scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Geekie
#39 · C · BOS
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:42 TOI · +2
E. Lindholm
#28 · C · BOS
0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 15:37 TOI · +1
A. Steeves
#21 · C · BOS
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 16:06 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • BOS won despite being outplayed by xG (43%). Goaltending or finishing carried them.
  • J. Korpisalo (BOS) stopped 1.9 goals above expected.
  • J. Binnington (STL) gave up 2.1 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • BOS was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 19 rush chances.
  • BOS created 5 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • STL created 9 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • BOS outperformed their expected goals by 2.1 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
  • STL underperformed xG by 1.9 — wasted quality chances.
  • J. Korpisalo (BOS) saved 1.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · STL at BOS · 7:00 PM ET

Blues at Bruins: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 6:50 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

50%
BOS
Model favorite
50%
50%
STL50BOS

BOS by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score STL 2.52.5 BOS; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

STL← edge
edge →BOS
49.0%5v5 xG%47.0%
48.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.34xGF / 602.39
2.40xGA / 602.67
2.00Goals for / gm2.22
2.12Goals against / gm1.82
1.000PDO — luck, not skill1.023

BOS holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.000 vs 1.023) says BOS has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model calls it a draw: 2.5 goals each, the Bruins at exactly 50% win probability. There is no lean.

Both teams are underwater in goal differential: St. Louis at -8 over its last 10, Boston at -7. Recent form is nearly indistinguishable.

The underlying metrics split evenly. St. Louis leads in expected goals (49.0% xG%) but trails in shot attempts (48.0% Corsi%). Boston flips: 47.0% xG%, 49.0% Corsi%. Neither has seized control.

Boston's singular advantage is PDO — a 1.023 indicates conversion at an unsustainable pace. Regression awaits. St. Louis sits at 1.000.

Offensively, Viktor Arvidsson drives Boston: 1.04 xG per 60 minutes, 18 goals at a 13.0% shooting rate. St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15 goals, 11.9% shooting) and Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, 10.8% shooting). Tanner Jeannot (0.75 xG/60, 6 goals) provides secondary punch for Boston.

Defensively, both expose vulnerabilities: St. Louis around Jimmy Snuggerud, Boston around Elias Lindholm. In goal, J. Swayman faces a back-to-back for Boston — load matters.

This close to even, a coin flip is the honest read.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters