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

Bruins steal one from the Capitals against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Bruins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 5.56–3.63 and won anyway.

WSH 2 · BOS 3
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 10:42 PMxG: 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 beat the Capitals 3-2 in a shootout, and the final score barely tells you what actually happened. Washington carried this game. Boston walked away with the two points anyway, thanks to a goaltender playing out of his mind and a shootout winner from James Hagens.

J. Brodzinski put the Capitals up first, scoring in the opening period off feeds from I. Miroshnichenko and J. Dunne. Boston tied it on the power play in the second when J. Schmaltz scored with an assist from R. Duran. Miroshnichenko struck again on his own in the third to put Washington back ahead, only for C. McAvoy to answer on Boston's own power play late in the same period, assisted by F. Minten and M. Poitras, to force overtime and eventually a shootout. That's where it turned: Hagens's backhander from the doorstep won it for Boston.

Here's the part the scoreboard hides. Washington finished with 60% of expected goals at 5-on-5, and the overall expected-goals split for the game went the Capitals' way 5.56 to 3.63 — a 60-40 split that says Washington was clearly the better team on the night. They out-attempted Boston too, and generated more rush shots. By any measure of who created the better, more dangerous chances, this was Washington's game to win.

It didn't happen because of two goaltenders on opposite ends of the same night. M. DiPietro stopped 30 of 32 shots for Boston and finished at +3.56 goals saved above his expected workload — meaning he stopped nearly four more goals than a league-average goaltender would have on the same shots he faced. That's the number that decided this game. On the other side, Washington's L. Thompson was also sharp, saving 28 of 30 and finishing above expected himself, including a perfect night on high-danger chances. He just didn't get enough help, or enough puck luck, to hold the lead.

Washington's power play didn't help their cause — they went 0-for-7 with the man advantage despite generating real quality with it, a rough finishing night on top of an already unlucky one. Boston's penalty-killed chances, by contrast, turned into real offense: McAvoy's power-play tally was the difference between overtime and a regulation loss.

The read here isn't that Boston stole a game they didn't deserve to be in — DiPietro's game was that good, full stop. But nothing about Tuesday suggests Washington needs to change anything. They controlled play for the majority of five-on-five hockey, generated more expected goals, and ran into a goaltender who simply refused to lose. Washington's real concern isn't process — it's finishing. Boston, meanwhile, got the exact kind of game good goaltending is supposed to buy you: a night where you were outplayed and won anyway.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Preseason · Sep 20
WSH
2
BOS
3

Bruins steal one from the Capitals against the run of play

Chances 5.6 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Capitals deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
WSH
5.56
BOS
3.63
61% of the chances40%

The board read WSH 2, BOS 3. The chances read WSH 5.6, BOS 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BOS
−0.6
goals above expected
BOS3.63 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WSH5.56 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Capitals left 3.6 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 08:48WSHJ. Brodzinski1–0
  2. P2 15:32BOSJ. SchmaltzPP1–1
  3. P3 05:34WSHI. Miroshnichenko2–1
  4. P3 18:17BOSC. McAvoyPP2–2
  5. SO 00:00BOSJ. HagensPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Chances by danger
WSHBOS
0 / 4
0.91 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.12 xG
2 / 33
4.16 xG
Medium
1 / 17
1.93 xG
0 / 38
0.49 xG
Low
1 / 36
0.58 xG

The Capitals went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
M. DiPietro
+3.6
BOS · 30/32
A
L. Thompson
+1.6
WSH · 28/30
Report card
WSHBOS
OffenseA+A-
DefenseFF
TransitionB+D-
Special teamsD+C-
GoaltendingA-A+
DisciplineB-C-
LuckD-A-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why BOS won
  1. 01M. DiPietro stole it
  2. 02Won against the run of play
  3. 03Dangerous off the rush
Why WSH lost
  1. 01Cold finishing night
  2. 02Deserved a better fate
  3. 03Rush defense leaked all night
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Bruins steal one from the Capitals against the run of play

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 / 09 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 7–7
  1. 08:48WSHJ. Brodzinski(I. Miroshnichenko, J. Dunne)1–0
2ndshots 5–12
  1. 15:32BOSJ. Schmaltzpower play(R. Duran)1–1
3rdshots 12–10
  1. 05:34WSHI. Miroshnichenko2–1
  2. 18:17BOSC. McAvoypower play(F. Minten, M. Poitras)2–2
OTshots 8–1no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00BOSJ. Hagenspower play2–2

    score reads WSH–BOS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.63
    BOS chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.6
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.008
    BOS puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    43.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.56Expected goals3.63
    WSH 61% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal30
    4High-danger chances5
    75All attempts (Corsi)58
    Adjusted for score: WSH 54% · BOS 46%
    Faceoffs · BOS won50%off59%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    WSH0 / 4 · 0.91 xG
    BOS0 / 5 · 1.12 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    WSH2 / 33 · 4.16 xG
    BOS1 / 17 · 1.93 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    WSH0 / 38 · 0.49 xG
    BOS1 / 36 · 0.58 xG

    WSH went 2-for-33 from medium danger on 4.16 expected goals — 2.2 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    WSH
    2 G · 5.56 xG · -3.6
    BOS
    3 G · 3.63 xG · -0.6
    0123456

    WSH finished -3.6 against expected, BOS -0.6.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    WSH
    SNAP1/30
    TIP IN0/11
    WRIST0/5
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/4
    DEFLECTED1/1
    OTHER0/19
    BOS
    SNAP0/21
    TIP IN0/4
    WRIST1/6
    SLAP1/5
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/18
    WSH
    BOS
    Off the rush
    0 G on 34
    3.26 xG
    0 G on 25
    2.37 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 7
    0.96 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.17 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: WSH went 1-for-30, BOS 0-for-21.

    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
    L. Thompson
    WSH · 28/30 · .933
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.1+1.1
    Medium1/171.9+0.9
    Low1/360.6-0.4

    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

    M. DiPietro
    BOS · 30/32 · .938
    +3.6
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium2/334.2+2.2
    Low0/380.5+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

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionWSHBOS
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    WSH Created 5.56 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.91 xG) and 34 rush shots (3.26 xG).

    BOS Created 3.63 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 5 high-danger shots (1.12 xG) and 25 rush shots (2.37 xG).

    A+
    100
    A-
    91
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    WSH Allowed 3.63 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 5 high-danger shots (1.12 xG) and 25 rush shots (2.37 xG).

    BOS Allowed 5.56 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.91 xG) and 34 rush shots (3.26 xG).

    F
    59
    F
    37
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    WSH Rush shots 34–25, rush xG 3.26–2.37 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    BOS Rush shots 25–34, rush xG 2.37–3.26 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    B+
    88
    D-
    62
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    WSH 0-for-7 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 3.44 PP xG.

    BOS 1-for-6 on the power play (17%; league ≈21%) with 1.08 PP xG.

    D+
    68
    C-
    72
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    WSH +1.63 goals saved above expected on 30 shots against.

    BOS +3.56 goals saved above expected on 32 shots against.

    A-
    91
    A+
    100
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

    WSH Took 7 penalties for 14 PIM vs 8 for 16 on the other side.

    BOS Took 8 penalties for 16 PIM vs 7 for 14 on the other side.

    B-
    80
    C-
    70
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    WSH Finishing -3.56 goals vs xG plus +1.63 GSAx of save luck = -1.93 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    BOS Finishing -1.63 goals vs xG plus +3.56 GSAx of save luck = +1.93 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    D-
    60
    A-
    90
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    STRENGTHBOS

    M. DiPietro stole it

    M. DiPietro stopped 30 of 32 (0.938) — +3.56 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

    LUCKWSH

    Cold finishing night

    Scored 2 on 5.56 xG — -3.56 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

    SURPRISEBOS

    Won against the run of play

    The Bruins took it 3-2 in a shootout with only 40% of expected goals (3.63–5.56).

    WARNINGBOS

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 34 rush shots worth 3.26 xG (0 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

    Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

    STRENGTHWSH

    Dangerous off the rush

    0 goals on 34 rush shots worth 3.26 xG.

    WARNINGWSH

    Deserved a better fate

    The Capitals controlled 60% of expected goals (5.56 to 3.63) and still lost — the process was there, the finish wasn't.

    Change nothing structurally — this loss was variance, not process.

    Ranked from the box score

    Three stars

    Points first
    Three stars · computed, not voted
    I. Miroshnichenko
    #63 · L · WSH
    1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 13:52 on ice · +2
    C. McAvoy
    #73 · D · BOS
    1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 28:35 on ice
    F. Minten
    #93 · C · BOS
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:40 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    Keep going

    Where to next