Motion-blurred skater in a gold and black sweater
Breakdown · LAK at BOS

Bruins run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 1 · BOS 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:31 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' 2-1 overtime victory was more convincing than the scoreboard suggested. They commanded 61% of 5v5 expected goals (4.37–2.78), controlled 59% of shot attempts (23–16), and most tellingly, generated nine high-danger chances to one. Boston was running the show.

Yet the goal differential was just one. D. Kuemper stopped everything Boston put at the goal line, saving 2.37 goals above expected—a performance that kept Los Angeles alive. The Bruins' other problem: they underperformed their own xG by 2.37. They had the looks; they couldn't finish as cleanly as their chances deserved.

J. Swayman's work at the other end (1.78 above expected) was sufficient, though he faced easier shots. Boston's attack was a quality operation. Their shot value—0.072 xG per attempt—nearly doubled Los Angeles's (0.045). The Bruins converted two of 30 rush chances into goals, a lethal edge in transition. They also created four rebound opportunities without converting any, crashing the net effectively.

Charlie McAvoy finished it at 00:39 of overtime with a backhander from the doorstep.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 10
LAK
1
BOS
2

Bruins run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.8 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Bruins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
2.78
BOS
4.37
39% of the chances61%

The board read LAK 1, BOS 2. The chances read LAK 2.8, BOS 4.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BOS
−2.4
goals above expected
BOS4.37 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK2.78 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings left 1.8 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. P3 08:22BOSM. Lohrei0–1
  2. P3 14:00LAKD. Doughty1–1
  3. OT 00:39BOSC. McAvoy1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
47 shots
1
Final
91 shots
BOS
44 shots
2
LAK attackBOS attack
LAK BOS Goal
47
shots · 1 in
44
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKBOS
0 / 1
0.50 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.35 xG
0 / 14
1.46 xG
Medium
0 / 12
1.28 xG
1 / 47
0.82 xG
Low
1 / 40
0.75 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 0 of 1, BOS 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Kuemper
+2.4
LAK · 21/23
A
J. Swayman
+1.8
BOS · 15/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Bruins run the Kings 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 5–3no goals
    2ndshots 3–9no goals
      3rdshots 8–10
      1. 08:22BOSM. Lohrei(H. Lindholm, V. Arvidsson)0–1
      2. 14:00LAKD. Doughty(T. Moore, A. Kempe)1–1
      OTshots 0–1
      1. 00:39BOSC. McAvoy(D. Pastrnak, M. Kastelic)1–2

      score reads LAK–BOS

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      4.37
      BOS chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −2.4
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.017
      BOS puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      49.6%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.78Expected goals4.37
      BOS 61% of the chance quality
      16Shots on goal23
      1High-danger chances9
      62All attempts (Corsi)61
      Adjusted for score: LAK 51% · BOS 49%
      Faceoffs · BOS won57%off69%neu40%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      LAK0 / 1 · 0.50 xG
      BOS1 / 9 · 2.35 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      LAK0 / 14 · 1.46 xG
      BOS0 / 12 · 1.28 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      LAK1 / 47 · 0.82 xG
      BOS1 / 40 · 0.75 xG

      LAK went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.46 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      LAK
      1 G · 2.78 xG · -1.8
      BOS
      2 G · 4.37 xG · -2.4
      012345

      LAK finished -1.8 against expected, BOS -2.4.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      LAK
      SNAP0/8
      WRIST0/16
      SLAP1/12
      TIP IN0/4
      BACKHAND0/5
      DEFLECTED0/1
      POKE0/1
      BAT0/0
      OTHER0/15
      BOS
      SNAP1/24
      WRIST0/8
      SLAP0/3
      TIP IN0/7
      BACKHAND1/1
      DEFLECTED0/0
      POKE0/0
      BAT0/1
      OTHER0/17
      LAK
      BOS
      Off the rush
      0 G on 26
      2.19 xG
      2 G on 30
      3.19 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 0
      0.00 xG
      0 G on 4
      0.49 xG

      Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 0-for-8, BOS 1-for-24. BOS 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
      D. Kuemper
      LAK · 21/23 · .913
      +2.4
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/92.4+1.4
      Medium0/121.3+1.3
      Low1/400.8-0.3

      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

      J. Swayman
      BOS · 15/16 · .938
      +1.8
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/10.5+0.5
      Medium0/141.5+1.5
      Low1/470.8-0.2

      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
      LAK
      47 shots
      1
      Final
      91 shots
      BOS
      44 shots
      2
      LAK attackBOS attack
      LAK BOS Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK 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. Doughty
      #8 · D · LAK
      1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 24:44 on ice
      D. Pastrnak
      #88 · R · BOS
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:03 on ice
      C. McAvoy
      #73 · D · BOS
      1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 22:26 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Tue, Mar 10
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:51 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 a 2.5-2.4 Kings win with LAK at 52% probability—about as close to even money as hockey gets. When the data points at a coin flip, that's what you're looking at.

      The tension is real. Boston has gone 5-2-3 over their last 10 games, the hotter team on the scoresheet. Los Angeles sits at -13 goal differential in the same span, a troubling slide. Yet the underlying metrics favor LA decisively: the Kings hold 52.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi at even strength, while Boston musters just 47.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi. LA controls the ice.

      Boston's edge is efficiency masking a deficit in volume. The Bruins' PDO sits at 1.023, signaling regression is likely—they're running hotter than their true underlying play warrants. LA's 1.002 PDO sits nearly neutral, closer to the mark.

      Goaltending adds uncertainty. A. Forsberg is on a back-to-back, so watch whether LA deploys the backup or risks a fatigued starter.

      The talent distribution tilts toward balance. Alex Laferriere drives LA with 0.87 xG/60, 16 goals, 18 assists, and a 9.9% shooting rate powered by two high-danger chances. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0 goals, 4 assists) remains on the periphery despite the underlying metrics suggesting he should contribute. Viktor Arvidsson leads Boston at 1.04 xG/60 with 18 goals, 24 assists, and a 13.0% shooting rate anchored by two high-danger goals. Tanner Jeannot (0.75 xG/60, 6 goals, 14 assists, 8.3% shooting) provides secondary punch with two high-danger chances.

      Adrian Kempe is LA's defensive weak link; Elias Lindholm is Boston's. These are where scoring chances will cluster.

      When recent performance and underlying metrics contradict each other this clearly, the model is telling you something: there's no edge. LA should win on the analytics. Boston's streak says otherwise. Both read as defensible, which is exactly the math for a pick'em.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      LAK 52%
      52%
      LAK
      Model favorite
      52%
      48%
      LAK50BOS

      LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.4 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
      LAK← edge
      edge →BOS
      52.0%47.0%
      52.0%49.0%
      2.422.39
      2.202.67
      1.852.22
      1.711.82
      1.0021.023

      LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 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
      LAK
      3-6-1
      -13 GD · 1d rest
      BOS
      5-2-3
      +1 GD · 2d rest
      1.002
      LAK PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.023
      BOS PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
      • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
      • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • A. Forsberg is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Bruins are the hotter team by points pace (5-2-3 in their last 10).
      • The Kings are underwater at -13 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
      LAK
      Expected in goal
      A. Forsberg
      back-to-back.875 last start
      Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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.

      BOS
      Expected in goal
      J. Korpisalo
      2 days rest.875 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
      LAK
      Alex Laferriere16G 18A
      0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
      Jared Wright0G 4A
      0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% 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