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

Bruins run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

DAL 3 · BOS 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:43 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

J. Oettinger stopped 1.1 goals above expected and Dallas still lost 6–3. That's how decisively Boston dominated the underlying metrics.

The Bruins controlled 60% of shot attempts (24–16), generated far more expected goals (5.10–2.66), and doubled up on high-danger chances (8–4). Every metric tilted heavily toward Boston.

Shot quality separated the teams. Boston created at 0.098 expected goals per shot versus Dallas's 0.072. Dallas was efficient on the rush—3 goals on 18 chances. Boston scored the same 3 on 30 attempts, a lower conversion rate, but the Bruins' dominance elsewhere overwhelmed the gap. Boston converted 1 of 5 rebound chances while Dallas managed 0 of 3, another sign of Boston's control.

The Bruins overperformed their xG by 0.90 goals, a surplus that reflects cleaner execution. V. Arvidsson's wrist shot from the wing at 19:47 of the third period was the turning point. He finished with 3 goals in 14:20. D. Pastrnak contributed three assists in 18:27, running Boston's offense. W. Johnston's goal and assist in 23:04 marked Dallas's most impactful effort.

J. Korpisalo's 0.812 SV% was sufficient—the underlying numbers had already decided the outcome.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 31
DAL
3
BOS
6

Bruins run the Stars off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.7 – 5.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Bruins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
2.66
BOS
5.10
34% of the chances66%

The board read DAL 3, BOS 6. The chances read DAL 2.7, BOS 5.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BOS
+0.9
goals above expected
BOS5.10 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL2.66 expected · 3 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 09:58BOSM. Khusnutdinov0–1
  2. P1 18:51BOSV. Arvidsson0–2
  3. P2 04:49DALJ. Benn1–2
  4. P2 16:53DALM. Duchene2–2
  5. P3 00:13BOSE. LindholmPP2–3
  6. P3 05:51BOSH. Jokiharju2–4
  7. P3 16:23BOSV. ArvidssonEN2–5
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
28 shots
3
Final
68 shots
BOS
40 shots
6
DAL attackBOS attack
DAL BOS Goal
28
shots · 3 in
40
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALBOS
2 / 4
1.25 xG
High danger
3 / 8
3.10 xG
1 / 9
0.97 xG
Medium
2 / 11
1.44 xG
0 / 24
0.43 xG
Low
1 / 33
0.56 xG

The Bruins buried 3 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
J. Oettinger
+1.1
DAL · 18/22
D
J. Korpisalo
−0.3
BOS · 13/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Bruins run the Stars 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 5–9
  1. 09:58BOSM. Khusnutdinov(H. Jokiharju, D. Pastrnak)0–1
  2. 18:51BOSV. Arvidsson(D. Pastrnak, P. Zacha)0–2
2ndshots 8–5
  1. 04:49DALJ. Benn(W. Johnston, M. Rantanen)1–2
  2. 16:53DALM. Duchene(J. Robertson)2–2
3rdshots 3–10
  1. 00:13BOSE. Lindholmpower play(D. Pastrnak, J. Aspirot)2–3
  2. 05:51BOSH. Jokiharju(E. Lindholm, M. Geekie)2–4
  3. 16:23BOSV. Arvidssonempty net2–5
  4. 19:02DALW. Johnstonpower play(J. Robertson, M. Heiskanen)3–5
  5. 19:47BOSV. Arvidssonempty net(C. McAvoy)3–6

score reads DAL–BOS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.10
BOS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.9
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.034
BOS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
58.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.66Expected goals5.10
BOS 66% of the chance quality
16Shots on goal24
4High-danger chances8
37All attempts (Corsi)52
Adjusted for score: DAL 46% · BOS 54%
Faceoffs · BOS won74%off50%neu64%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DAL2 / 4 · 1.25 xG
BOS3 / 8 · 3.10 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DAL1 / 9 · 0.97 xG
BOS2 / 11 · 1.44 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DAL0 / 24 · 0.43 xG
BOS1 / 33 · 0.56 xG

DAL went 2-for-4 from high danger on 1.25 expected goals — 0.8 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DAL
3 G · 2.66 xG · +0.3
BOS
6 G · 5.10 xG · +0.9
01234567

DAL finished +0.3 against expected, BOS +0.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DAL
SNAP0/4
WRIST1/16
SLAP1/4
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND1/1
OTHER0/9
BOS
SNAP1/22
WRIST5/6
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/12
DAL
BOS
Off the rush
3 G on 18
1.99 xG
3 G on 30
3.29 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.53 xG
1 G on 5
0.42 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: DAL went 0-for-4, BOS 1-for-22. DAL scored 3 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. Oettinger
DAL · 18/22 · .818
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/83.1+0.1
Medium2/111.4-0.6
Low1/330.6-0.4

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. Korpisalo
BOS · 13/16 · .812
-0.3
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/41.3-0.8
Medium1/91.0-0.0
Low0/240.4+0.4

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

68 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DAL
28 shots
3
Final
68 shots
BOS
40 shots
6
DAL attackBOS attack
DAL BOS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL 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
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 18:27 on ice · +2
V. Arvidsson
#71 · L · BOS
3 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 14:20 on ice · +1
W. Johnston
#53 · C · DAL
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:04 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 31
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:41 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 2.5-2.5 game with the Stars at 51% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The Stars own the underlying play, generating 51.0% 5v5 expected goals versus Boston's 47.0%. But the Bruins run a 49.0% Corsi to the Stars' 47.0%, controlling possession even as the Stars convert chances more efficiently. That gap between possession and shot quality is where the edge lives.

Both squads are running hot. The Stars sit at 1.024 PDO; Boston at 1.023. When two teams land this close in projection and luck alike, regression is the only certainty. One of these metrics breaks before the final horn.

Jason Robertson anchors the Stars at 0.96 xG/60 with 25 goals and 21 assists. His 12.4% shooting rate and 2 high-danger goals suggest real touch rather than variance. Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8 goals, 14 assists, 7.6% shooting) offers the secondary scoring that wins tight games—selective, not voluminous.

Boston counters with Viktor Arvidsson: 18 goals, 24 assists, 1.04 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals, 13.0% shooting rate. Tanner Jeannot (0.75 xG/60, 6 goals, 14 assists, 2 HD goals, 8.3% shooting) has been reliable if unspectacular in chance creation.

The structural flaw for the Stars: Tyler Myers on the back line. For Boston: Elias Lindholm in a similar slot. Whichever team minimizes its weak link wins.

Two teams, nearly identical odds, essentially identical talent. The model says pick'em. The scoresheet will take hours longer than that decision.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 51%
51%
DAL
Model favorite
51%
49%
DAL50BOS

DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 2.5–2.5 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
DAL← edge
edge →BOS
51.0%47.0%
47.0%49.0%
2.362.39
2.292.67
2.072.22
1.681.82
1.0241.023

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.023) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DAL
4-4-2
+1 GD · 2d rest
BOS
6-2-2
+7 GD · 2d rest
1.024
DAL 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 Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Stars own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
DAL
Expected in goal
C. DeSmith
2 days rest.933 last start
Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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