The Bruins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.63–6.06 and won anyway.
Boston's 6–2 victory masks a dominating performance by Edmonton. The Oilers controlled 70% of expected goals (6.06–2.63), generating 36 shot attempts to the Bruins' 29. The scoreboard and the underlying play told radically different stories.
J. Swayman made the difference. The Bruins' goalie stopped 34 of 36 shots (0.944 SV%) and saved 4.06 goals above expected. Meanwhile, C. Ingram struggled: the Oilers' starter allowed 6 goals on 29 shots and finished 3.37 goals below expectation.
Edmonton's control was methodical and fruitless. The Oilers generated 14 high-danger chances and converted zero. They shot with superior efficiency (0.101 expected goals per shot versus Boston's 0.048), yet scored just 2 goals. On the rush, they managed 2 goals on 29 chances; they created 8 rebound opportunities and finished 0-for-8.
Boston capitalized on limited opportunity. The Bruins generated only 2 high-danger chances but scored 3 goals from low-danger spots. They converted 4 rush chances on 29 attempts and made 2 of 3 rebound opportunities count.
The turning point came when David Pastrnak's slap shot from a sharp angle at 14:34 broke what had been a competitive game. He finished with 2 goals and 1 assist in 20:03. H. Lindholm contributed 1 goal and 1 assist in 21:20. F. Minten added 2 assists in 17:51.
Edmonton's night encapsulates a hockey truth: elite underlying metrics don't guarantee victory. The Oilers were superior in shot volume, shot quality, and high-danger chance creation—70% of expected goals—yet left with a 6–2 loss. Swayman's excellence and Ingram's collapse flipped every advantage. In a larger sample, performances this disparate between underlying play and the scoreboard don't repeat.
