Backcheck
Recap · PIT at BOS

Bruins shut out the Penguins, 1-0

The Bruins won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

By the ModelJul 12, 12:18 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
PIT
Pittsburgh Penguins
0
Home
BOS
Boston Bruins
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.87Expected goals2.88
50% share for the better side
27Shot attempts (SOG)19
3High-danger chances3
62Corsi (all attempts)56
Score-adjusted: 56% / 44%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Goaltending decided this game despite even underlying play. Expected goals split 2.88–2.87 — nearly identical. J. Korpisalo's +2.87 outperformance (1.000 SV%) determined the outcome. The Penguins accumulated 2.87 expected goals and scored zero.

Pittsburgh dominated shot volume (27 to 19 on net). High-danger chances finished even at three apiece. S. Skinner delivered a strong showing (0.947 SV%, +1.88 vs expected), but Korpisalo simply outperformed him.

V. Arvidsson's backhander from the doorstep (P1, 11:00) was the game's sole goal.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT0 / 3 · 0.68 xG
BOS0 / 3 · 0.72 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT0 / 13 · 1.60 xG
BOS1 / 16 · 1.60 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT0 / 46 · 0.59 xG
BOS0 / 37 · 0.56 xG

PIT went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.60 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
0 G · 2.87 xG · -2.9
BOS
1 G · 2.88 xG · -1.9
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
S. SkinnerPIT
+1.9
J. KorpisaloBOS
+2.9

PIT finished -2.9 against expected, BOS -1.9 — J. Korpisalo (BOS) saved 2.9 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
WRIST0/23
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/4
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND0/5
OTHER0/19
BOS
WRIST0/17
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/7
SNAP0/5
BACKHAND1/3
OTHER0/19
PIT
BOS
Off the rush
0 G on 26 · 2.04 xG
0 G on 24 · 2.12 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4 · 0.54 xG
1 G on 1 · 0.08 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 0-for-23, BOS 0-for-17.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
H. Jokiharju
#20 · D · BOS
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:43 TOI · +1
V. Arvidsson
#71 · L · BOS
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 16:46 TOI · +1
C. Mittelstadt
#11 · C · BOS
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 15:59 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • PIT generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • S. Skinner (PIT) stopped 1.9 goals above expected.
  • PIT created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • BOS underperformed xG by 1.9 — wasted quality chances.
  • PIT underperformed xG by 2.9 — wasted quality chances.
  • S. Skinner (PIT) saved 1.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • J. Korpisalo (BOS) saved 2.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · PIT at BOS · 5:00 PM ET

Penguins at Bruins: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 12:17 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
PIT
Model favorite
51%
49%
PIT50BOS

PIT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 2.72.6 BOS; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

PIT← edge
edge →BOS
51.0%5v5 xG%47.0%
50.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.66xGF / 602.39
2.55xGA / 602.67
2.45Goals for / gm2.22
2.12Goals against / gm1.82
1.012PDO — luck, not skill1.023

PIT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.012 vs 1.023) says BOS has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.7-2.6 Penguins victory with Pittsburgh at 51% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Pittsburgh owns the underlying play. The Penguins generate 51.0% of expected goals at 5v5 while Boston musters 47.0%, and they edge the Corsi battle 50.0% to 49.0%. But Boston's PDO sits at 1.023—running hot—while Pittsburgh's is a more modest 1.012. Expect some regression from the Bruins.

The goaltending situation clouds things. J. Swayman faces a back-to-back and may yield to a backup, or start fatigued. A. Silovs is in the same bind. Whichever starter gets the nod will affect this razor-thin margin.

For Pittsburgh, Rickard Rakell carries 13 goals and a 12.1% shooting rate at 1.01 xG/60—a threat to neutralize. The Penguins' weaknesses are structural: Filip Hallander (1.28 xG/60, 0G 3A) was recalled from his AHL conditioning loan for further evaluation, but Caleb Jones represents a softer defensive link that Boston's offense can exploit. Pittsburgh scores at 0% from high-danger areas and 0% on rebounds, a concerning sign for offensive efficiency.

Boston counters with Viktor Arvidsson (18G 24A, 1.04 xG/60) and his 13.0% shooting rate—expect Pittsburgh's defense to key on him. Tanner Jeannot adds secondary punch at 0.75 xG/60 with six goals and an 8.3% shooting rate. Like Pittsburgh, Boston scores at 0% from high-danger areas and 0% on rebounds, limiting ceiling regardless of outcome. Elias Lindholm is Boston's defensive weak link.

With both teams' PDOs skewed, underlying possession slight in Pittsburgh's favor, and goaltending uncertainty on both sides, neither team has clear advantage. The Penguins' edge in expected goals is real but slender, and a hot-running Bruins roster playing at home could easily flip this.

The value sits in accepting the uncertainty: This is a toss-up, and the model knows it.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% 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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters