Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
Breakdown · BOS at TBL

Lightning run the Bruins off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

BOS 5 · TBL 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:40 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 Lightning edged the Bruins 6-5 in a shootout, but their control metrics tell a different story. They owned 60% of expected goals (6.34–4.15) and 57% of shot attempts (46–34 on goal).

What kept the scoreline close was goaltending variance. A. Vasilevskiy surrendered 0.85 goals above expected, while J. Swayman stopped 1.34 above it. That nearly two-goal swing between the pipes masked how thoroughly Tampa Bay controlled play.

Rush play was the main reason Boston stayed alive. Tampa Bay scored 5 goals on 42 rush attempts; Boston matched that (5 goals on 28 attempts), converting at a rate that compensated for volume disadvantage. High-danger chances split 9–8 for Tampa, close enough to keep the game open.

Tampa Bay's power play was the deciding factor. They scored 3 times on 29 shots, generating 3.06 expected goals—a volume Boston's penalty kill couldn't contain. Neither team capitalized on rebounds; Tampa created 5 with zero conversions, Boston created 7 with zero conversions.

N. Kucherov (1G, 3A in 28:13) and B. Hagel (1G, 2A in 27:37) led Tampa's offense. M. Geekie (2G, 1A in 18:43) kept Boston competitive, but Jake Guentzel's snap shot from the slot decided it in the shootout.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Feb 1
BOS
5
TBL
6

Lightning run the Bruins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.2 – 6.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
BOS
4.15
TBL
6.34
40% of the chances60%

The board read BOS 5, TBL 6. The chances read BOS 4.2, TBL 6.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−0.3
goals above expected
TBL6.34 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS4.15 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:11TBLB. Hagel0–1
  2. P1 11:24BOSA. Steeves1–1
  3. P1 15:36BOSM. Geekie2–1
  4. P1 18:03BOSV. ArvidssonPP3–1
  5. P2 02:22BOSM. Poitras4–1
  6. P2 08:18BOSM. Geekie5–1
  7. P2 10:28TBLO. BjorkstrandPP5–2
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BOS
45 shots
5
Final
111 shots
TBL
66 shots
6
BOS attackTBL attack
BOS TBL Goal
45
shots · 5 in
66
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BOSTBL
1 / 8
1.76 xG
High danger
2 / 9
2.17 xG
4 / 16
1.86 xG
Medium
2 / 30
3.52 xG
0 / 32
0.54 xG
Low
1 / 44
0.66 xG

The Lightning buried 2 of 9 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Swayman
+1.3
BOS · 41/46
D-
A. Vasilevskiy
−0.8
TBL · 29/34
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning 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 20–8
  1. 00:11TBLB. Hagel(N. Kucherov, D. Raddysh)0–1
  2. 11:24BOSA. Steeves(M. Eyssimont)1–1
  3. 15:36BOSM. Geekie(C. McAvoy, J. Aspirot)2–1
  4. 18:03BOSV. Arvidssonpower play(C. McAvoy, M. Geekie)3–1
2ndshots 9–22
  1. 02:22BOSM. Poitras(M. Kastelic)4–1
  2. 08:18BOSM. Geekie(D. Pastrnak, M. Khusnutdinov)5–1
  3. 10:28TBLO. Bjorkstrandpower play(B. Hagel, J. Guentzel)5–2
  4. 15:50TBLD. Raddyshpower play(N. Kucherov, B. Hagel)5–3
  5. 16:13TBLN. Paulpower play(J. Guentzel, N. Kucherov)5–4
3rdshots 5–7
  1. 11:50TBLN. Kucherov(R. McDonagh, E. Cernak)5–5
OTshots 0–9no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00TBLJ. Guentzelpower play5–5

    score reads BOS–TBL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    6.34
    TBL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.3
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.971
    TBL puck luck
    Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
    59.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.15Expected goals6.34
    TBL 60% of the chance quality
    34Shots on goal46
    8High-danger chances9
    56All attempts (Corsi)83
    Adjusted for score: BOS 38% · TBL 62%
    Faceoffs · TBL won74%off60%neu24%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    BOS1 / 8 · 1.76 xG
    TBL2 / 9 · 2.17 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    BOS4 / 16 · 1.86 xG
    TBL2 / 30 · 3.52 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    BOS0 / 32 · 0.54 xG
    TBL1 / 44 · 0.66 xG

    BOS went 4-for-16 from medium danger on 1.86 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    BOS
    5 G · 4.15 xG · +0.8
    TBL
    6 G · 6.34 xG · -0.3
    01234567

    BOS finished +0.8 against expected, TBL -0.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    BOS
    WRIST0/15
    SNAP1/10
    SLAP1/8
    TIP IN2/3
    BACKHAND1/5
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    OTHER0/13
    TBL
    WRIST1/18
    SNAP1/17
    SLAP2/17
    TIP IN1/9
    BACKHAND0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/19
    BOS
    TBL
    Off the rush
    5 G on 28
    2.59 xG
    5 G on 42
    4.29 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 7
    1.02 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.59 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: BOS went 0-for-15, TBL 1-for-18. BOS scored 5 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. Swayman
    BOS · 41/46 · .891
    +1.3
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/92.2+0.2
    Medium2/303.5+1.5
    Low1/440.7-0.3

    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

    A. Vasilevskiy
    TBL · 29/34 · .853
    -0.8
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/81.8+0.8
    Medium4/161.9-2.1
    Low0/320.5+0.5

    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

    111 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    BOS
    45 shots
    5
    Final
    111 shots
    TBL
    66 shots
    6
    BOS attackTBL attack
    BOS TBL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — BOS left, TBL 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. Kucherov
    #86 · R · TBL
    1 G · 3 A · 8 SOG · 28:13 on ice · +1
    B. Hagel
    #38 · L · TBL
    1 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 27:37 on ice · +1
    M. Geekie
    #39 · C · BOS
    2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:43 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Feb 1
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:06 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 projects Tampa Bay to win this matchup, putting the Lightning at 58% win probability in a forecasted 2.3–2.8 goal victory. That lean rests entirely on possession control and underlying efficiency—but both teams face a reckoning from inflated shooting luck.

    The Lightning dominate territorially. Their 54.0% expected-goals share and 53.0% Corsi percentage represent genuine structural advantage, while Boston's 47.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi show a team ceding the puck. This gap is not margin-of-error variance; it's foundational.

    The complication: both teams are riding unsustainably high PDO numbers. Tampa's 1.019 and Boston's 1.023 mean they're converting chances above what their shot quality justifies. When luck normalizes—and the model prices that this will happen—both offensive outputs shrink.

    Brandon Hagel is Tampa's most dangerous forward. He generates 1.10 expected goals per 60 minutes with 23 goals, 26 assists, and two high-danger goals on a brisk 15.8% shooting rate. That efficiency isn't random. Anthony Cirelli poses a secondary but real threat at 0.95 xG/60, having posted 15 goals, 18 assists, and five high-danger markers on a 17.0% shooting percentage—a rate certain to compress.

    Boston counters with Viktor Arvidsson, who operates at 1.04 xG/60 with 18 goals, 24 assists, and two high-danger goals on a 13.0% shooting rate suggesting room for regression there as well. Tanner Jeannot checks in at 0.75 xG/60 with 6 goals and 14 assists on two high-danger chances, his 8.3% shooting rate leaving room for volatility either direction.

    The defensive mismatches matter here. Elias Lindholm represents Boston's weak point; Victor Hedman is Tampa's liability. With Tampa's structural advantage, the Lightning should generate more chances against Boston's weaker defensive anchor. Yet both teams' inflated PDO figures mean the margin will likely compress as regression takes hold. The model's 58% lean reflects Tampa's play-driving edge, discounted for the probability that unsustainable finishing rates collapse first.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    TBL 58%
    58%
    TBL
    Model favorite
    42%
    58%
    BOS50TBL

    TBL by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score BOS 2.3–2.8 TBL; 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
    BOS← edge
    edge →TBL
    47.0%54.0%
    49.0%53.0%
    2.392.67
    2.672.28
    2.222.38
    1.821.85
    1.0231.019

    TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.023 vs 1.019) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    BOS
    8-1-1
    +10 GD · 2d rest
    TBL
    8-1-1
    +18 GD · 2d rest
    1.023
    BOS PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.019
    TBL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Lightning own the underlying play — 54.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Lightning drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    BOS
    Expected in goal
    J. Swayman
    2 days rest.917 last start
    Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    TBL
    Expected in goal
    A. Vasilevskiy
    2 days rest.958 last start
    Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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
    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
    TBL
    Brandon Hagel23G 26A
    1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 15.8% sh
    Anthony Cirelli15G 18A
    0.95 xG/60 · 5 HD · 17.0% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next