Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater

Breakdown · VAN at BOS

Canucks steal one from the Bruins against the run of play

Final / OTSat, Dec 20

The verdict · stolen

The Canucks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.56–5.38 and won anyway.

VAN 5 · BOS 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:16 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 Canucks beat the Bruins 5-4 in a shootout despite losing the expected-goals battle 5.38–2.56. Boston had 68% of the xG at 5v5 and still lost — this was a heist.

The Bruins dominated shot volume, landing 43 attempts to Vancouver's 23. Expected goals told the same story: 68–32 split in Boston's favor. High-danger chances went 9–3 to Boston. By every process metric, the Bruins were superior.

The Canucks won anyway. K. Lankinen made 39 saves on 43 shots with a 0.907 save percentage, outperforming his expected performance by 1.38 goals. J. Swayman, meanwhile, stopped only 19 of 23, posting an 0.826 save percentage — 1.44 goals worse than expected. Variance tilted hard toward Vancouver's goaltender.

Boston's efficiency numbers were elite: they generated 0.073 expected goals per shot compared to Vancouver's 0.054. Yet they failed to convert. The Bruins scored three goals from low-danger chances, the kind a goaltender must steal. They were lethal in transition, too — three goals on 28 rush chances — but Vancouver matched that intensity with four goals on just 20 rush opportunities.

The sequence that decided it came in the shootout. Liam Ohgren's backhander from the doorstep sent Vancouver home with the win.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Dec 20

VAN

BOS

Canucks steal one from the Bruins against the run of play

Chances 2.6 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Bruins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

VAN

2.56

BOS

5.38

32% of the chances68%

The board read VAN 5, BOS 4. The chances read VAN 2.6, BOS 5.4.

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

Luck check

VAN

+2.4

goals above expected

VAN2.56 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

BOS5.38 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

The Canucks scored 2.4 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 08:23BOSM. GeekiePP0–1
P1 19:45VANM. Sasson1–1
P2 04:22VANL. KarlssonPP2–1
P2 09:41BOSP. Zacha2–2
P2 12:05BOST. Jeannot2–3
P3 03:53VANL. Karlsson3–3
P3 07:34VANL. Ohgren4–3

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

VAN

42 shots

Final

106 shots

BOS

64 shots

VAN BOS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

VANBOS

0 / 3

0.75 xG

High danger

1 / 9

2.73 xG

3 / 10

1.27 xG

Medium

0 / 15

1.83 xG

1 / 34

0.54 xG

Low

3 / 50

0.82 xG

High-danger looks: VAN 0 of 3, BOS 1 of 9.

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

In the net

B+

K. Lankinen

+1.4

VAN · 39/43

D-

J. Swayman

−1.4

BOS · 19/23

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Canucks steal one from the Bruins 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 4–13

08:23BOSM. Geekiepower play(C. McAvoy, E. Lindholm)0–1
19:45VANM. Sasson(L. Ohgren, L. Karlsson)1–1

2ndshots 9–17

04:22VANL. Karlssonpower play(E. Kane, F. Hronek)2–1
09:41BOSP. Zacha(N. Zadorov, C. Mittelstadt)2–2
12:05BOST. Jeannot(M. Kastelic, F. Minten)2–3

3rdshots 8–7

03:53VANL. Karlsson(M. Rossi)3–3
07:34VANL. Ohgren(M. Pettersson, J. DeBrusk)4–3
16:16BOSA. Peeke(M. Khusnutdinov, M. Geekie)4–4

OTshots 2–6no goals

00:00VANL. Ohgrenpower play4–4

score reads VAN–BOS

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.56

VAN chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.031

VAN puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

38.8%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.56Expected goals5.38

BOS 68% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal43

3High-danger chances9

47All attempts (Corsi)74

Adjusted for score: VAN 39% · BOS 61%

Faceoffs · BOS won67%off60%neu57%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

VAN0 / 3 · 0.75 xG

BOS1 / 9 · 2.73 xG

Medium dangermid-range

VAN3 / 10 · 1.27 xG

BOS0 / 15 · 1.83 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

VAN1 / 34 · 0.54 xG

BOS3 / 50 · 0.82 xG

BOS went 3-for-50 from low danger on 0.82 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

VAN

5 G · 2.56 xG · +2.4

BOS

4 G · 5.38 xG · -1.4

0123456

VAN finished +2.4 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

VAN

WRIST2/14

SNAP1/6

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND0/6

TIP IN1/3

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/12

BOS

WRIST3/31

SNAP1/11

SLAP0/8

BACKHAND0/4

TIP IN0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/17

VAN

BOS

Off the rush

4 G on 20

2.06 xG

3 G on 28

3.05 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.08 xG

0 G on 7

1.55 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 2-for-14, BOS 3-for-31. VAN scored 4 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

K. Lankinen

VAN · 39/43 · .907

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/92.7+1.7

Medium0/151.8+1.8

Low3/500.8-2.2

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 · 19/23 · .826

-1.4

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.8+0.8

Medium3/101.3-1.7

Low1/340.5-0.5

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

106 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

VAN

42 shots

Final

106 shots

BOS

64 shots

VAN BOS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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

L. Karlsson

#94 · C · VAN

2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 13:01 on ice · +1

M. Geekie

#39 · C · BOS

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:39 on ice · +1

L. Ohgren

#92 · L · VAN

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 12:21 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 20

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:15 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 calls this pick'em: Vancouver 2.4–2.7 goals, Boston 55% to win. When you look at underlying strength, there's almost no separation.

Vancouver is minus-5 in goal differential over its last 10. The Canucks' 44.0% xG% trails Boston's 47.0%, and the Corsi split (46.0% vs. 49.0%) confirms it: the Bruins create more chances and control the puck. But Vancouver's PDO of 0.974 is running cold, and regression is available. Boston's PDO sits at 1.023—the inverse. The Bruins are running hot, and some of that luck evaporates.

Rest tips the scale slightly toward Vancouver: the Bruins have 1 day off; the Canucks have 3. That's meaningful for a team whose underlying metrics suggest it's close enough to win with fresh legs.

J. Swayman, though, is on a back-to-back. Watch for Boston to start a backup, or a tired starter who doesn't have his usual edge. That's a wildcard.

The matchups are tight. Vancouver's Filip Chytil generates 1.03 xG per 60 and has 3 goals on 15.0% shooting—elite volume and precision. He clears space for Drew O'Connor, who has 13 goals and shoots 11.8%. Boston counters with Viktor Arvidsson: 1.04 xG per 60, 18 goals, and the rare player who both creates and finishes at scale. Tanner Jeannot (0.75 xG/60, 6 goals, 8.3% shooting) operates in the secondary tier.

Boston's defensive weak link is Elias Lindholm. Vancouver's is Victor Mancini. The Bruins' puck possession edge—49.0% Corsi—matters most when Lindholm is on his heels. Conversely, Mancini can be exploited by the Canucks' more aggressive forecheck.

PDO favors Vancouver. Rest favors Vancouver. Puck possession, goaltending health, and top-line punch favor Boston. The edges cancel. Flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BOS 55%

55%

BOS

Model favorite

45%

55%

VAN50BOS

BOS by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score VAN 2.4–2.7 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

VAN← edge

edge →BOS

44.0%47.0%

46.0%49.0%

2.222.39

2.812.67

1.602.22

2.561.82

0.9741.023

BOS holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 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

VAN

4-5-1

-5 GD · 3d rest

BOS

6-4-0

+5 GD · 1d rest

0.974

VAN 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.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

J. Swayman is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Canucks are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Canucks have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

VAN

Expected in goal

T. Demko

3 days rest1.000 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BOS

Expected in goal

J. Swayman

back-to-back.880 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

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% 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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page