Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a gold and black sweater
← Tue, Jan 27 · the slate
Breakdown · NSH at BOS

Bruins edge the Predators in overtime

Final / OTTue, Jan 27
NSHNashville Predators2BOSBoston Bruins3
The verdict · stolen

The Bruins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.71–2.79 and won anyway.

NSH 2 · BOS 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:44 AMxG: 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 Bruins stole this game. Despite losing the expected-goals battle 2.79–3.71 (43–57%), Boston won 3-2 in overtime — a heist that hinged on J. Swayman's plus-1.71 SV% and a tip-in from D. Pastrnak at 00:15 of overtime.

Nashville outplayed Boston at even strength, controlling 57% of expected goals at 5v5. The Bruins held just 48% of shot attempts (28–30) but won the high-danger chances 6–4. Goaltending was the difference: J. Swayman posted 0.933 SV%, stopping 1.7 goals above expected, while J. Saros delivered 0.893 SV% on 25/28 saves.

Both teams struck on the rush. Boston scored 2 goals on 25 rush chances; Nashville scored 2 on 31. Neither team capitalized on rebound opportunities — Boston created three, Nashville eight, each converting zero. Nashville underperformed their xG by 1.71 goals, wasted quality that should have buried Boston. Swayman's dominance prevented the blowout and sent the game to overtime.

D. Pastrnak ended it from the doorstep, securing the two points on a night where the Bruins' superior finishing and goaltending overcame Nashville's control of play.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 27
NSH
2
BOS
3

Bruins edge the Predators in overtime

Chances 3.7 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
3.71
BOS
2.79
57% of the chances43%

The board read NSH 2, BOS 3. The chances read NSH 3.7, BOS 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BOS
+0.2
goals above expected
BOS2.79 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH3.71 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Predators left 1.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 13:16BOSH. Lindholm0–1
  2. P2 02:48BOSM. Geekie0–2
  3. P2 19:25NSHR. JosiPP1–2
  4. P3 13:17NSHN. Blankenburg2–2
  5. OT 00:15BOSD. Pastrnak2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
53 shots
2
Final
91 shots
BOS
38 shots
3
NSH attackBOS attack
NSH BOS Goal
53
shots · 2 in
38
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHBOS
0 / 4
0.79 xG
High danger
2 / 6
1.46 xG
1 / 18
1.98 xG
Medium
0 / 10
0.88 xG
1 / 42
0.94 xG
Low
1 / 30
0.45 xG

The Predators went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Swayman
+1.7
BOS · 28/30
C
J. Saros
−0.2
NSH · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Bruins edge the Predators in overtime

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 6–8
  1. 13:16BOSH. Lindholm(M. Lohrei, F. Minten)0–1
2ndshots 13–13
  1. 02:48BOSM. Geekie(D. Pastrnak, J. Aspirot)0–2
  2. 19:25NSHR. Josipower play(R. O'Reilly, S. Stamkos)1–2
3rdshots 11–6
  1. 13:17NSHN. Blankenburg(A. Wilsby, L. Evangelista)2–2
OTshots 0–1
  1. 00:15BOSD. Pastrnak(C. McAvoy, M. Khusnutdinov)2–3

score reads NSH–BOS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.79
BOS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.034
BOS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.71Expected goals2.79
NSH 57% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal28
4High-danger chances6
64All attempts (Corsi)46
Adjusted for score: NSH 62% · BOS 38%
Faceoffs · BOS won40%off71%neu67%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NSH0 / 4 · 0.79 xG
BOS2 / 6 · 1.46 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NSH1 / 18 · 1.98 xG
BOS0 / 10 · 0.88 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NSH1 / 42 · 0.94 xG
BOS1 / 30 · 0.45 xG

NSH went 1-for-18 from medium danger on 1.98 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NSH
2 G · 3.71 xG · -1.7
BOS
3 G · 2.79 xG · +0.2
012345

NSH finished -1.7 against expected, BOS +0.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NSH
WRIST0/21
SNAP1/11
TIP IN0/7
SLAP1/6
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/3
BAT0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/11
BOS
WRIST0/18
SNAP2/6
TIP IN1/4
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/8
NSH
BOS
Off the rush
2 G on 31
2.08 xG
2 G on 25
2.08 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 8
1.20 xG
0 G on 3
0.51 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 0-for-21, BOS 0-for-18. NSH scored 2 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. Saros
NSH · 25/28 · .893
-0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/61.5-0.5
Medium0/100.9+0.9
Low1/300.5-0.6

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 · 28/30 · .933
+1.7
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.8+0.8
Medium1/182.0+1.0
Low1/420.9-0.1

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

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NSH
53 shots
2
Final
91 shots
BOS
38 shots
3
NSH attackBOS attack
NSH BOS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH 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
D. Pastrnak
#88 · R · BOS
1 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 23:46 on ice · +2
R. Josi
#59 · D · NSH
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 29:59 on ice · -2
C. McAvoy
#73 · D · BOS
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 27:14 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 27
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:43 AMEdited 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 won't pick a side: 2.6 expected goals apiece, 51% win probability for Boston.

Boston is 8-2-0 over their last 10 games; Nashville sits at -8 goal differential over the same span. The divergence looks damning, but the underlying 5v5 metrics tell a different story. Nashville owns a shot-quality edge at 49.0% xG% and 50.0% Corsi%, better than Boston's 47.0% xG% and 49.0% Corsi%. The problem for the Predators isn't generation—it's finishing. Both teams score on 0% of their high-danger chances and fail to convert rebound opportunities, suggesting neither has rhythm in scoring areas.

The variance in results comes down to shooting luck. Boston's 1.023 PDO means the Bruins convert at an inflated rate and allow fewer goals than their shot volume predicts. Regression is inevitable. Nashville runs 0.992, suggesting their results are roughly tracking their underlying shot volume.

Individual performance matters at this margin. Nashville's Zachary L'Heureux generates 0.85 expected goals per 60 minutes with 4 goals and a 16.0% shooting rate—both signs of unsustainability. Filip Forsberg offers more durable production: 0.80 xG/60, 23 goals, 13.6% shooting. Boston counters with Viktor Arvidsson's elite 1.04 xG/60 and 18 goals at 13.0%, and Tanner Jeannot's 0.75 xG/60 with 6 goals at 8.3% shooting. Jeannot's rate suggests that 6 won't hold.

Defensively, Jonathan Marchessault is Nashville's weak link; Elias Lindholm carries that role for Boston. In a game this close, those vulnerabilities are worth hunting.

Boston's recent form is real, but it's built on a PDO that won't persist. Nashville's shot quality is real, but it hasn't translated to goals yet. The team that regresses slower wins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BOS 51%
51%
BOS
Model favorite
49%
51%
NSH50BOS

BOS by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score NSH 2.6–2.6 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
NSH← edge
edge →BOS
49.0%47.0%
50.0%49.0%
2.482.39
2.582.67
1.842.22
2.211.82
0.9921.023

NSH holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 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
NSH
5-5-0
-8 GD · 3d rest
BOS
8-2-0
+15 GD · 2d rest
0.992
NSH 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.
Things to watch
  • The Bruins are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
  • The Predators are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NSH
Expected in goal
J. Saros
3 days rest.867 last start
Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 GSAx this season

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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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