Montreal's command of this game was undeniable: 60% of expected goals (5.33–3.57), 11 high-danger chances to Boston's 5, 52% of shot attempts. They deserved the win. Cole Caufield's tip-in at 04:38 of overtime merely formalized what play itself had already determined.

But the path there revealed how thin the margin was. J. Swayman's 28 saves, at a 0.903 save percentage, outperformed his model by 2.33 goals—almost precisely the buffer Boston needed to survive Montreal's relentless pressure. Montreal, for their part, underperformed their own expected goals by 2.33 goals, squandering early premium chances.

The efficiency patterns cut both ways. Montreal was lethal on the rush: 3 goals on 31 chances, compared to Boston's 2 on 23. The Bruins, meanwhile, went 0/5 on high-danger looks, a variance that won't repeat. J. Dobes stopped everything Montreal's opposition created, posting a 0.929 save percentage—1.57 goals above expected.

Neither team converted its rebound chances. Montreal crashed the net 5 times without result; Boston did so 7 times, also empty. Overtime arrived because both teams' supplementary scoring dried up.

The model projects a 2.5 to 2.7 goal game, with Montreal at 53% win probability—which is to say Boston and Montreal are essentially interchangeable here. This is pick'em territory.

The underlying numbers bear that out. Boston leads in even-strength Corsi at 49.0%, which Montreal matches exactly; Montreal edges expected goals share at 48.0% to Boston's 47.0%. Neither team has built a possession edge meaningful enough to carry the weight of this matchup.

What matters more is what both teams have built in the periphery. Boston's PDO sits at 1.023, Montreal's at 1.018—both are running hot on luck. When PDO normalizes, both teams will regress. The question is how much and how fast, and whether that regression happens tonight.

J. Korpisalo figures into Montreal's equation on the back of a back-to-back, which may necessitate a backup start or simply a tired starter. That's a variable Boston should exploit if the opportunity arrives.

On offense, Viktor Arvidsson has been Boston's primary weapon: 1.04 expected goals per 60 minutes, 18 goals and 24 assists with two high-danger chances and a 13.0% shooting rate that suggests he's been executing at the net. Tanner Jeannot pairs with him at 0.75 xG/60, with six goals against an 8.3% shooting percentage—another indicator he's been efficient.

Montreal counters with Cole Caufield, who is running at 0.97 xG/60 with 33 goals and 16 assists. That 20.0% shooting rate is unsustainable; when it normalizes downward, Caufield's goal total will follow. Oliver Kapanen at 0.83 xG/60 with four high-danger chances gives Montreal secondary punch at 17.8% shooting, though again, that rate will regress.

The matchups offer little separation. Both teams have managed 0% of their goals from high-danger situations and 0% from rebounds—an unusual statistical vacuum that will eventually resolve. Boston's defensive weak link is Elias Lindholm; Montreal's is Mike Matheson. Neither hole is so large as to swing a game this close.

The model is right. This is a flip. Boston's possession advantage is negligible, and Montreal's shooting efficiency will normalize. The team that capitalizes on the first margin—J. Korpisalo's potential rust, a spike in high-danger finishing, or a turnover by Lindholm or Matheson—likely wins.