Backcheck
Recap · BUF at BOS

Bruins run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJun 16, 2:23 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
BUF
Buffalo Sabres
1
Home
BOS
Boston Bruins
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.30Expected goals4.92
68% share for the better side
22Shot attempts (SOG)31
3High-danger chances7
57Corsi (all attempts)66
Score-adjusted: 50% / 50%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

A. Lyon stole this game. Boston dominated the metrics—68% of 5v5 expected goals (4.92–2.30), 58-42 shot attempts (31-22 on goal)—yet won by only two goals. The goaltending gap explains it: Lyon saved 2.92 above expected while J. Swayman saved 1.30.

Boston generated far higher-quality chances: 0.075 xG per shot versus Buffalo's 0.040. The high-danger count was 7-3 in Boston's favor. Yet Lyon's 0.933 save percentage kept the Sabres competitive.

Sean Kuraly's tip-in at 19:57 of the third broke the stalemate. M. Kastelic added a goal and assist in 12:42. C. McAvoy contributed an assist (24:27). A. Peeke added an assist at 20:11.

The variance tells the story. Boston underperformed their xG by 1.92 goals. Buffalo underperformed by 1.30. Lyon's 2.92 save margin above expected was the sole reason the final didn't read 4-1 or worse. One goaltender kept a mismatched game within reach.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BUF0 / 3 · 0.79 xG
BOS1 / 7 · 2.95 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BUF0 / 7 · 0.61 xG
BOS1 / 13 · 1.24 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BUF1 / 47 · 0.89 xG
BOS1 / 46 · 0.73 xG

BOS went 1-for-7 from high danger on 2.95 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BUF
1 G · 2.30 xG · -1.3
BOS
3 G · 4.92 xG · -1.9
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
A. LyonBUF
+2.9
J. SwaymanBOS
+1.3

BUF finished -1.3 against expected, BOS -1.9 — A. Lyon (BUF) saved 2.9 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
BUF
SNAP1/17
WRIST0/14
SLAP0/4
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/18
BOS
SNAP1/16
WRIST0/17
SLAP1/10
TIP IN1/2
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/16
BUF
BOS
Off the rush
1 G on 24 · 1.81 xG
1 G on 23 · 3.24 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3 · 0.21 xG
0 G on 4 · 0.48 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BUF went 1-for-17, BOS 1-for-16.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Kastelic
#47 · C ·
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 12:42 TOI · +2
C. McAvoy
#73 · D ·
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:27 TOI · +1
A. Peeke
#26 · D ·
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:11 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • BUF generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • A. Lyon (BUF) stopped 2.9 goals above expected.
  • BOS generated far more dangerous chances — 0.075 xG/shot vs 0.040. Quality over quantity.
  • BOS created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • BUF created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • BOS underperformed xG by 1.9 — wasted quality chances.
  • A. Lyon (BUF) saved 2.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · BUF at BOS · 7:00 PM ET

Sabres at Bruins: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJun 16, 2:22 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

50%
BUF
Model favorite
50%
50%
BUF50BOS

BUF by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score BUF 2.62.6 BOS; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

BUF← edge
edge →BOS
50.0%5v5 xG%47.0%
49.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.55xGF / 602.39
2.55xGA / 602.67
2.35Goals for / gm2.22
1.90Goals against / gm1.82
1.020PDO — luck, not skill1.023

BUF holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.020 vs 1.023) says BOS has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The projection: 2.6-2.6, Boston 50% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as exists.

Boston is the hotter team by recent form—6-1-1 in their last 10. Buffalo, however, controls the underlying play: 50.0% expected goals share at even strength versus Boston's 47.0%. Both teams sit at 49.0% Corsi.

The Buffalo offense hinges on Jason Zucker and Josh Doan. Zucker generates 1.07 xG per 60 minutes with 14 goals and 14 assists; he's shooting 15.1% and has six goals from high-danger chances. Doan operates at 1.01 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists on an 11.5% shooting rate, though only two of those goals came from dangerous areas. Boston's offense is led by Viktor Arvidsson (1.04 xG/60, 18 goals, 24 assists, 13.0% shooting) and Mark Kastelic (0.89 xG/60, 10 goals, 7 assists, 12.0% shooting), who has registered three high-danger goals despite lower overall shot quality.

Defensively, Elias Lindholm is Boston's weak link; Jack Quinn is Buffalo's liability. Both teams face variance in goal conversion: neither has capitalized on high-danger chances or rebound chances at the rates their underlying metrics predict (both at 0%), a sign of shooting luck at play.

Three Stars to Watch:

  • Buffalo owns the underlying play—50.0% expected goals at even strength versus 47.0%.
  • Boston is the hotter team by recent pace (6-1-1 in last 10).
  • Both teams' PDO is elevated (Boston 1.023, Buffalo 1.020)—expect regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

BUF
Jason Zucker14G 14A
1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh
Josh Doan15G 18A
1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% sh
BOS
Viktor Arvidsson18G 24A
1.04 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
Mark Kastelic10G 7A
0.89 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.0% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters