Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · OTT at BOS

Senators pull away from the Bruins

The verdict · earned

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

OTT 6 · BOS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:22 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 Senators won 6-2, but expected goals suggested a tighter contest: xG split 3.68–3.24 in Ottawa's favor. The Bruins held 42% of shot attempts and tied the Senators at 6 high-danger chances. The 4-goal final margin significantly exceeded the underlying metrics.

The overperformance was stark. Ottawa outperformed its xG by 2.32 goals while Boston underperformed by 1.24. Goaltending explained the variance. J. Korpisalo posted a 0.706 save percentage and allowed 2.8 goals more than expected; L. Ullmark saved 1.2 above expected at 0.900. J. Swayman, Boston's starter, actually excelled — he saved 2.7 above expected and posted a 0.909 mark — but his strong outing was drowned out by his team's deficit.

F. Zetterlund's slap shot from the high slot in the second period marked the turning point. He recorded 2G and 1A in 17:12. D. Batherson posted 1G and 2A in 16:11, while D. Cozens contributed 1G and 2A in 15:40.

Ottawa's special teams converted efficiently. The power play scored 2 goals on 7 shots, well above the 0.32 expected goals mark. Both teams were lethal on the rush — Ottawa buried 3 goals on 24 chances, Boston 2 on 25 — but neither team converted rebound opportunities, with Boston creating four (zero goals) and Ottawa five (zero goals). Ottawa's proficiency at low-danger scoring combined with Korpisalo's weak evening in net transformed a close metrics matchup into a convincing victory.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 21
OTT
6
BOS
2

Senators pull away from the Bruins

Chances 3.7 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.68
BOS
3.24
53% of the chances47%

The board read OTT 6, BOS 2. The chances read OTT 3.7, BOS 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
+2.3
goals above expected
OTT3.68 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS3.24 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators scored 2.3 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:30OTTD. Batherson1–0
  2. P1 13:44OTTC. Giroux2–0
  3. P1 16:47OTTF. ZetterlundPP3–0
  4. P1 19:07BOSD. PastrnakPP3–1
  5. P2 06:44OTTT. Stützle4–1
  6. P2 07:03OTTD. Cozens5–1
  7. P2 14:36BOSC. McAvoy5–2
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
40 shots
6
Final
77 shots
BOS
37 shots
2
OTT attackBOS attack
OTT BOS Goal
40
shots · 6 in
37
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTBOS
1 / 6
1.35 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.30 xG
3 / 14
1.64 xG
Medium
0 / 15
1.50 xG
2 / 31
0.69 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.44 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 1 of 6, BOS 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Swayman
+2.7
BOS · 10/11
B+
L. Ullmark
+1.2
OTT · 18/20
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators pull away from the Bruins

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 11–5
  1. 01:30OTTD. Batherson(N. Jensen, D. Cozens)1–0
  2. 13:44OTTC. Giroux(D. Batherson, D. Cozens)2–0
  3. 16:47OTTF. Zetterlundpower play(T. Chabot, D. Perron)3–0
  4. 19:07BOSD. Pastrnakpower play(P. Zacha, C. McAvoy)3–1
2ndshots 9–8
  1. 06:44OTTT. Stützle(B. Tkachuk, F. Zetterlund)4–1
  2. 07:03OTTD. Cozens(D. Batherson, D. Perron)5–1
  3. 14:36BOSC. McAvoy(M. Khusnutdinov)5–2
  4. 17:26OTTF. Zetterlundpower play(S. Halliday, C. Giroux)6–2
3rdshots 8–7no goals

    score reads OTT–BOS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.68
    OTT chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.082
    OTT puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    47.7%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.68Expected goals3.24
    OTT 53% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal20
    6High-danger chances6
    51All attempts (Corsi)56
    Adjusted for score: OTT 41% · BOS 59%
    Faceoffs · BOS won45%off60%neu43%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    OTT1 / 6 · 1.35 xG
    BOS1 / 6 · 1.30 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    OTT3 / 14 · 1.64 xG
    BOS0 / 15 · 1.50 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    OTT2 / 31 · 0.69 xG
    BOS1 / 35 · 0.44 xG

    BOS went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.50 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    OTT
    6 G · 3.68 xG · +2.3
    BOS
    2 G · 3.24 xG · -1.2
    01234567

    OTT finished +2.3 against expected, BOS -1.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    OTT
    SNAP2/22
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP1/4
    BACKHAND0/5
    WRIST3/4
    BAT0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/11
    BOS
    SNAP0/16
    TIP IN1/9
    SLAP1/6
    BACKHAND0/2
    WRIST0/2
    BAT0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/19
    OTT
    BOS
    Off the rush
    3 G on 24
    2.20 xG
    2 G on 25
    2.25 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 5
    0.85 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.65 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 2-for-22, BOS 0-for-16. OTT scored 3 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
    L. Ullmark
    OTT · 18/20 · .900
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.3+0.3
    Medium0/151.5+1.5
    Low1/350.4-0.6

    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 · 10/11 · .909
    +2.7
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.4+0.3
    Medium3/141.6-1.4
    Low2/310.7-1.3

    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. Korpisalo
    BOS · 12/17 · .706
    -1.3
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.4+0.3
    Medium3/141.6-1.4
    Low2/310.7-1.3

    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

    77 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    OTT
    40 shots
    6
    Final
    77 shots
    BOS
    37 shots
    2
    OTT attackBOS attack
    OTT BOS Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
    F. Zetterlund
    #20 · L · OTT
    2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:12 on ice · +1
    D. Batherson
    #19 · R · OTT
    1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:11 on ice · +2
    D. Cozens
    #24 · C · OTT
    1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 15:40 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Dec 21
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:21 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

    Ottawa's 55% win probability rests on a simple fact: the Senators dominate underlying play. They generate 56.0% expected goals and control 53.0% of Corsi territory against a Boston team stuck at 47.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi. The projected 2.7–2.4 scoreline isn't a squeaker—it's the widening gap between what's actually happening and what the Bruins have banked on unsustainable finishing.

    That unsustainability is Boston's problem. At 1.023 PDO, the Bruins are overperforming high-quality chances by nearly three percent. Regression is not a forecast; it's a timer. Ottawa sits at 0.993 PDO, suggesting the Senators have slightly underperformed their looks and have variance working in their favor.

    The goaltending matchup adds uncertainty. L. Meriläinen faces a back-to-back, inviting either fatigue or a benching.

    Brady Tkachuk is Ottawa's offensive engine at 1.19 xG per 60, though his 11 goals and 20 assists on 7.5% shooting point toward eventual regression. Dylan Cozens, operating at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals and an elite 9.5% shooting rate, is the sharper threat. Neutralize one, and Boston can compete.

    Boston's counter is Viktor Arvidsson, whose 1.04 xG/60 and 13.0% shooting (18 goals, 24 assists) is a mirage waiting to collapse. Tanner Jeannot's 0.75 xG/60 reminds you he's a depth scorer, though his 8.3% clip keeps him functional.

    The mismatch lives on defense. Elias Lindholm's weak-side exposure invites Tkachuk into dangerous ice. Ottawa hasn't sustained high hard-chance or rebound conversion, but Tkachuk's shot quality and volume suggest the team can lift those numbers against a vulnerable backend.

    The model's lean is Ottawa across every layer: not explosive, but durable. Play to form, and the Senators win in regulation.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 55%
    55%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    55%
    45%
    OTT50BOS

    OTT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score OTT 2.7–2.4 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
    OTT← edge
    edge →BOS
    56.0%47.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.662.39
    2.122.67
    2.182.22
    1.991.82
    0.9931.023

    OTT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 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
    OTT
    5-5-0
    +3 GD · 1d rest
    BOS
    6-4-0
    +5 GD · 2d rest
    0.993
    OTT 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 Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Senators drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • L. Meriläinen 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
    OTT
    Expected in goal
    L. Meriläinen
    back-to-back.833 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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.

    BOS
    Expected in goal
    J. Swayman
    2 days rest.880 last start
    Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 GSAx this season

    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
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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