Motion-blurred skater in a Montreal Canadiens sweater

Breakdown · MTL at BOS

Canadiens run the Bruins off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Dec 23

MTLMontreal Canadiens6 BOSBoston Bruins2

The verdict · earned

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

MTL 6 · BOS 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:46 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

Montreal's 6-2 win obscures the underlying precision: they scored six goals on an expected 3.89. A 2.11-goal overperformance sits well outside variance—it was elite finishing backing a 61–39 expected-goal advantage (3.89–2.48).

Boston's problem was quality masking as volume. The Bruins held 49% of shot attempts (28-29 on goal), but graded low: 0.047 xG per attempt versus Montreal's 0.066. High-danger chances made the gap obvious—Montreal generated seven to Boston's one, converting three (43%) to Boston's one (14%).

J. Swayman absorbed the damage. The goalie went 23-for-29 (0.793 SV%), 2.11 goals below his expected baseline. J. Fowler (Montreal) operated in the inverse reality: 26 of 28 (0.929 SV%), standing on firmer ground.

Montreal's efficiency extended beyond shooting. On the rush, they scored three goals on 28 attempts. Boston manufactured four rebound chances and converted zero. The power play reinforced the gap: 2 PPG on 12 shots (1.26 xG).

Juraj Slafkovský's slap shot from the top of the circles (P3, 12:22) capped Montreal's third-period control.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 23

MTL

BOS

Canadiens run the Bruins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.9 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Canadiens earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

MTL

3.89

BOS

2.48

61% of the chances39%

The board read MTL 6, BOS 2. The chances read MTL 3.9, BOS 2.5.

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

Luck check

MTL

+2.1

goals above expected

MTL3.89 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

BOS2.48 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Canadiens scored 2.1 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 11:08MTLS. Blais1–0
P1 12:25BOSM. Khusnutdinov1–1
P1 19:42BOSA. SteevesPP1–2
P2 01:58MTLI. Demidov2–2
P3 07:04MTLZ. Bolduc3–2
P3 08:43MTLC. CaufieldPP4–2
P3 10:09MTLN. SuzukiPP5–2

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

MTL

43 shots

Final

78 shots

BOS

35 shots

MTL BOS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

MTLBOS

3 / 7

1.54 xG

High danger

1 / 1

0.23 xG

3 / 15

1.77 xG

Medium

1 / 16

1.82 xG

0 / 37

0.59 xG

Low

0 / 36

0.43 xG

The Canadiens buried 3 of 7 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

J. Fowler

+0.5

MTL · 26/28

J. Swayman

−2.1

BOS · 23/29

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Canadiens 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 8–17

11:08MTLS. Blais(L. Hutson, N. Dobson)1–0
12:25BOSM. Khusnutdinov(M. Lohrei)1–1
19:42BOSA. Steevespower play(D. Pastrnak, V. Arvidsson)1–2

2ndshots 12–5

01:58MTLI. Demidov2–2

3rdshots 9–6

07:04MTLZ. Bolduc(N. Suzuki, L. Hutson)3–2
08:43MTLC. Caufieldpower play(N. Dobson, I. Demidov)4–2
10:09MTLN. Suzukipower play(J. Slafkovský, N. Dobson)5–2
12:22MTLJ. Slafkovský(L. Hutson)6–2

score reads MTL–BOS

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.89

MTL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.064

MTL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

52.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.89Expected goals2.48

MTL 61% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal28

7High-danger chances1

59All attempts (Corsi)53

Adjusted for score: MTL 51% · BOS 49%

Faceoffs · BOS won38%off67%neu56%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

MTL3 / 7 · 1.54 xG

BOS1 / 1 · 0.23 xG

Medium dangermid-range

MTL3 / 15 · 1.77 xG

BOS1 / 16 · 1.82 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

MTL0 / 37 · 0.59 xG

BOS0 / 36 · 0.43 xG

MTL went 3-for-7 from high danger on 1.54 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

MTL

6 G · 3.89 xG · +2.1

BOS

2 G · 2.48 xG · -0.5

01234567

MTL finished +2.1 against expected, BOS -0.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

MTL

SNAP0/10

WRIST4/17

SLAP1/8

BACKHAND0/2

TIP IN0/4

WRAP AROUND0/1

BAT1/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/16

BOS

SNAP1/22

WRIST1/1

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/6

TIP IN0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/18

MTL

BOS

Off the rush

3 G on 28

2.95 xG

1 G on 16

1.37 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 2

0.35 xG

0 G on 4

0.45 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: MTL went 0-for-10, BOS 1-for-22. MTL 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

J. Fowler

MTL · 26/28 · .929

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/10.2-0.8

Medium1/161.8+0.8

Low0/360.4+0.4

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 · 23/29 · .793

-2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/71.5-1.5

Medium3/151.8-1.2

Low0/370.6+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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

MTL

43 shots

Final

78 shots

BOS

35 shots

MTL BOS GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — MTL 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

N. Dobson

#53 · D · MTL

0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 24:04 on ice

L. Hutson

#48 · D · MTL

0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 22:44 on ice · +4

N. Suzuki

#14 · C · MTL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:26 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 23

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:05 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 is essentially indifferent: it projects a 2.5-2.6 goal game with Boston holding 52% win probability. That margin is noise.

Both teams are running even at even strength. Montreal's 48.0% expected goals share and 49.0% Corsi are matched against Boston's 47.0% xG% and identical Corsi—genuine statistical parity. The differentiator is finish: both are overperforming their shot quality. Montreal's 1.018 PDO and Boston's 1.023 PDO suggest both are due for regression, which cuts both ways.

Back-to-back situations for both J. Swayman and J. Dobes create variability: a backup start is possible, or both starters are fatigued. That's unpredictable leverage.

Montreal leans on Cole Caufield, who carries 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes at even strength while running a 20.0% shooting rate—33 goals and 16 assists sustained by elite finishing. Oliver Kapanen backs him at 0.83 xG/60, converting 17.8% of his shots into goals. The Bruins will gameplan around Caufield, but they'll be chasing a player who shoots better than the underlying chances suggest.

Boston counters with Viktor Arvidsson at 1.04 xG/60, a volume generator fueling 18 goals and 24 assists, while Tanner Jeannot operates at 0.75 xG/60. Montreal's Mike Matheson represents the softest defensive link; Boston's is Elias Lindholm.

Both teams generate and suppress chances at nearly identical rates. Both are punching above their shot quality. The unpredictable variable—goaltending fatigue—becomes the decisive factor.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BOS 52%

52%

BOS

Model favorite

48%

52%

MTL50BOS

BOS by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score MTL 2.5–2.6 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

MTL← edge

edge →BOS

48.0%47.0%

49.0%49.0%

2.412.39

2.622.67

2.242.22

1.961.82

1.0181.023

MTL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 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

MTL

5-3-2

+2 GD · 1d rest

BOS

5-4-1

+3 GD · 1d rest

1.018

MTL 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 Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

J. Swayman is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Dobes 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

MTL

Expected in goal

J. Dobes

back-to-back.903 last start

Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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

back-to-back.909 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

MTL

Cole Caufield33G 16A

0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh

Oliver Kapanen19G 12A

0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% 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