Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
Breakdown · EDM at BOS

Oilers run the Bruins off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 3 · BOS 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:50 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

The Bruins held 51% of shot attempts and lost 3-1 anyway. Edmonton controlled 61% of expected goals (3.79–2.39) and generated shots worth roughly double Boston's per attempt (0.082 vs 0.041). The Bruins had the volume; Edmonton had everything else.

High-danger chances confirmed it: Edmonton 6, Boston 2. Connor McDavid's backhander from the doorstep (P3, 01:41) exemplified the gap—a look that decided the game.

Both teams crashed the net effectively for rebounds. Boston created three opportunities (zero converted); Edmonton created six (one converted). But Edmonton's looks were dangerous enough that moderate efficiency decided the margin. On the rush, Edmonton was lethal: 2 goals on 20 chances.

The underlying metrics split cleanly. Edmonton underperformed their expected goals by 0.79, Boston by 1.39. C. Pickard stopped all 13 for Edmonton and outperformed expected by 1.19. T. Jarry went 12-for-13 in relief. J. Swayman performed above expected for Boston (0.880 SV%, +0.79), but facing lower-quality chances meant his performance mattered less than the gap his teammates faced.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 18
EDM
3
BOS
1

Oilers run the Bruins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.8 – 2.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
3.79
BOS
2.39
61% of the chances39%

The board read EDM 3, BOS 1. The chances read EDM 3.8, BOS 2.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
−0.8
goals above expected
EDM3.79 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS2.39 expected · 1 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
  1. P1 13:38EDMR. Nugent-HopkinsPP1–0
  2. P1 16:27BOSP. ZachaPP1–1
  3. P2 14:38EDMQ. Hutson2–1
  4. P3 01:41EDMC. McDavidSH3–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
34 shots
3
Final
72 shots
BOS
38 shots
1
EDM attackBOS attack
EDM BOS Goal
34
shots · 3 in
38
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMBOS
1 / 6
1.82 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.47 xG
1 / 14
1.68 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.35 xG
1 / 26
0.28 xG
Low
0 / 44
0.57 xG

High-danger looks: EDM 1 of 6, BOS 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. Pickard
+2.4
EDM · 13/13
B+
T. Jarry
+1.4
EDM · 12/13
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers run the Bruins 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 5–7
  1. 13:38EDMR. Nugent-Hopkinspower play(C. McDavid, L. Draisaitl)1–0
  2. 16:27BOSP. Zachapower play(E. Lindholm, C. McAvoy)1–1
2ndshots 10–9
  1. 14:38EDMQ. Hutson(M. Jones)2–1
3rdshots 10–10
  1. 01:41EDMC. McDavidshorthanded(R. Nugent-Hopkins, D. Nurse)3–1

score reads EDM–BOS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.79
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.048
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.79Expected goals2.39
EDM 61% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal26
6High-danger chances2
46All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: EDM 41% · BOS 59%
Faceoffs · BOS won56%off63%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM1 / 6 · 1.82 xG
BOS0 / 2 · 0.47 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM1 / 14 · 1.68 xG
BOS1 / 12 · 1.35 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM1 / 26 · 0.28 xG
BOS0 / 44 · 0.57 xG

EDM went 1-for-6 from high danger on 1.82 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
3 G · 3.79 xG · -0.8
BOS
1 G · 2.39 xG · -1.4
012345

EDM finished -0.8 against expected, BOS -1.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
WRIST1/16
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND2/7
SNAP0/2
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/12
BOS
WRIST0/13
SLAP0/10
BACKHAND1/3
SNAP0/7
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/20
EDM
BOS
Off the rush
2 G on 20
2.94 xG
1 G on 21
1.56 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 6
0.76 xG
0 G on 3
0.35 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 1-for-16, BOS 0-for-13. EDM 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. Pickard
EDM · 13/13 · 1.000
+2.4
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium1/121.4+0.3
Low0/440.6+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

T. Jarry
EDM · 12/13 · .923
+1.4
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium1/121.4+0.3
Low0/440.6+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 · 22/25 · .880
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.8+0.8
Medium1/141.7+0.7
Low1/260.3-0.7

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

72 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
EDM
34 shots
3
Final
72 shots
BOS
38 shots
1
EDM attackBOS attack
EDM BOS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:56 on ice · +1
R. Nugent-Hopkins
#93 · C · EDM
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:05 on ice · +1
C. McAvoy
#73 · D · BOS
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 23:21 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 18
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:49 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 an Edmonton 2.6 to Boston 2.5 game with the Oilers at 52% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Edmonton owns the underlying play. The Oilers' 52.0% expected goals share against 47.0% for Boston means higher-quality shot volume. Their 50.0% to 49.0% Corsi edge confirms Edmonton's structural advantage in possession. The catch: Boston is running hot at a 1.023 PDO, while Edmonton is stuck cold at 0.982. Regression favors the Oilers.

Zach Hyman has been Edmonton's most dangerous even-strength producer, generating 1.23 expected goals per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 13 assists at a 13.0% conversion rate—including 1 high-danger chance goal. Connor McDavid trails in shot volume (0.92 xG/60) but has posted 25 goals and 33 assists at 13.7%, cashing 5 high-danger chances. Boston's best answer is Viktor Arvidsson, operating at 1.04 xG/60 with 18 goals and 24 assists at 13.0%, backed by 2 high-danger chance goals. Tanner Jeannot rounds out the threat matrix at 0.75 xG/60—6 goals, 14 assists, 8.3% shooting, and 2 high-danger chances.

Both teams are converting high-danger chances at 0% and rebound goals at 0%, which likely reflects recent variance rather than structural weakness. The defensive vulnerabilities are Jake Walman for Edmonton and Elias Lindholm for Boston.

Edmonton's xG advantage and PDO deficit create a classic regression opportunity. The Oilers have been robbed by luck and should mean-revert upward. Boston's heat is unsustainable. Yet the pregame model barely likes Edmonton at 52%. That ambivalence is warranted. This is a genuine flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 52%
52%
EDM
Model favorite
52%
48%
EDM50BOS

EDM by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.6–2.5 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
EDM← edge
edge →BOS
52.0%47.0%
50.0%49.0%
2.642.39
2.472.67
2.132.22
2.291.82
0.9821.023

EDM holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 vs 1.023) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
EDM
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
BOS
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.982
EDM PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.023
BOS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Oilers own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% 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