Motion-blurred skater in a gold and black sweater

Breakdown · BOS at STL

Bruins run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Dec 9

The verdict · earned

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

BOS 5 · STL 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:43 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 dominated the underlying metrics and won decisively: they controlled 69% of expected goals at 5v5 (6.04 to 2.71), a structural advantage that translated to their 5-2 victory.

St. Louis held shot volume—26 attempts to Boston's 31—but lagged in quality. The Blues generated just 0.047 expected goals per shot versus Boston's 0.083. High-danger chances fell 5-9, a shortfall that telegraphed the outcome.

Both teams found success on the rush: St. Louis scored twice on 23 attempts; Boston twice on 26. The Bruins separated themselves in the hard areas, generating six rebound opportunities and converting one. St. Louis could not sustain that net-front pressure.

Goaltending revealed the game's extremes. J. Swayman (BOS) stopped 24 of 26 shots for a 0.923 save percentage, playing 0.71 goals above expected. J. Hofer (STL) stopped 26 of 30 shots for a 0.867 save percentage, posting 2.04 goals above expected—a masterful performance that could not change the outcome.

D. Pastrnak (#88) recorded three assists in 15:36. R. Thomas (#18) scored twice in 20:56, and P. Buchnevich (#89) added two assists in 19:55. Individual excellence for St. Louis did not matter; Boston's underlying advantage was decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 9

BOS

STL

Bruins run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 6.0 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Bruins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

BOS

6.04

STL

2.71

69% of the chances31%

The board read BOS 5, STL 2. The chances read BOS 6.0, STL 2.7.

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

Luck check

BOS

−1.0

goals above expected

BOS6.04 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

STL2.71 expected · 2 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

P1 05:27STLR. ThomasPP0–1
P2 12:48BOSF. Minten1–1
P2 14:34BOSM. Kastelic2–1
P3 04:51STLR. Thomas2–2
P3 08:01BOSM. Kastelic3–2
P3 11:33BOSF. Minten4–2
P3 18:19BOSP. ZachaEN5–2

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

Where the shots came from

BOS

53 shots

Final

89 shots

STL

36 shots

BOS STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BOSSTL

3 / 9

3.41 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.06 xG

2 / 21

2.18 xG

Medium

1 / 11

1.12 xG

0 / 43

0.45 xG

Low

0 / 41

0.52 xG

The Bruins buried 3 of 9 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

J. Hofer

+2.0

STL · 26/30

J. Swayman

+0.7

BOS · 24/26

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Bruins run the Blues off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 11–10

05:27STLR. Thomaspower play(P. Buchnevich, J. Faulk)0–1

2ndshots 13–3

12:48BOSF. Minten(M. Khusnutdinov, D. Pastrnak)1–1
14:34BOSM. Kastelic(S. Kuraly, V. Soderstrom)2–1

3rdshots 7–13

04:51STLR. Thomas(P. Buchnevich)2–2
08:01BOSM. Kastelic(S. Kuraly, N. Zadorov)3–2
11:33BOSF. Minten(D. Pastrnak, A. Peeke)4–2
18:19BOSP. Zachaempty net(E. Lindholm, D. Pastrnak)5–2

score reads BOS–STL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

6.04

BOS chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.0

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.033

BOS puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

56.2%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

6.04Expected goals2.71

BOS 69% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal26

9High-danger chances5

73All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: BOS 56% · STL 44%

Faceoffs · STL won50%off71%neu55%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BOS3 / 9 · 3.41 xG

STL1 / 5 · 1.06 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BOS2 / 21 · 2.18 xG

STL1 / 11 · 1.12 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BOS0 / 43 · 0.45 xG

STL0 / 41 · 0.52 xG

STL went 0-for-41 from low danger on 0.52 expected goals — 0.5 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BOS

5 G · 6.04 xG · -1.0

STL

2 G · 2.71 xG · -0.7

01234567

BOS finished -1.0 against expected, STL -0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BOS

WRIST3/26

SNAP0/7

SLAP1/5

TIP IN0/7

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED1/2

POKE0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/20

STL

WRIST0/21

SNAP1/7

SLAP1/4

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

POKE0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/21

BOS

STL

Off the rush

2 G on 26

2.79 xG

2 G on 23

2.36 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 6

0.76 xG

0 G on 1

0.02 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BOS went 3-for-26, STL 0-for-21. 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 · 24/26 · .923

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.1+0.1

Medium1/111.1+0.1

Low0/410.5+0.5

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. Hofer

STL · 26/30 · .867

+2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/93.4+0.4

Medium2/212.2+0.2

Low0/430.5+0.5

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BOS

53 shots

Final

89 shots

STL

36 shots

BOS STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BOS left, STL 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 · 3 A · 3 SOG · 15:36 on ice · +2

R. Thomas

#18 · C · STL

2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:56 on ice

P. Buchnevich

#89 · L · STL

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:55 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:41 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 model projects a 2.4 to 2.6 goal game with the Blues at 54% win probability—as close to a pick'em as Vegas allows.

The numbers back that call. St. Louis holds a 49.0% xG share to Boston's 47.0%, yet the Bruins edge 49.0% to 48.0% on Corsi. Boston runs a PDO of 1.023—hot relative to their play—while St. Louis sits at 1.000. Regression favors the Blues.

J. Binnington is on a back-to-back, which typically means either a backup start or a tired starter.

Boston leans on Viktor Arvidsson, who generates 1.04 xG per 60, shoots 13.0%, and has posted 18 goals and 24 assists with 2 high-danger conversions. Tanner Jeannot provides secondary punch at 0.75 xG/60, 6 goals, 14 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and 8.3% shooting—a rate primed to regress upward. The Bruins are sitting at 0% high-danger and 0% rebound goals, metrics that cannot hold. Their defensive weak spot is Elias Lindholm.

St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15 goals, 22 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 11.9% shooting) and Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, 24 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 10.8% shooting). The Blues also run 0% high-danger and 0% rebound goals. Snuggerud, meanwhile, is a defensive liability despite his offensive output.

Everything tilts toward parity: St. Louis edges the underlying metrics, Boston faces PDO regression, and the goaltending is uncertain. This is the coin flip the model was designed to call.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

STL 54%

54%

STL

Model favorite

46%

54%

BOS50STL

STL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BOS 2.4–2.6 STL; 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 →STL

47.0%49.0%

49.0%48.0%

2.392.34

2.672.40

2.222.00

1.822.12

1.0231.000

BOS holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.023 vs 1.000) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BOS

5-5-0

+0 GD · 2d rest

STL

5-3-2

-4 GD · 1d rest

1.023

BOS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.000

STL 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. Binnington 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.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

BOS

Expected in goal

J. Swayman

2 days rest.967 last start

Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

STL

Expected in goal

J. Binnington

back-to-back.885 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +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.

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page