Backcheck
Recap · BOS at MTL

J. Swayman stands tall as the Bruins edge the Canadiens

The Bruins won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

By the ModelJul 11, 4:03 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
BOS
Boston Bruins
3
Home
MTL
Montreal Canadiens
2
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.82Expected goals4.80
50% share for the better side
23Shot attempts (SOG)28
9High-danger chances8
63Corsi (all attempts)71
Score-adjusted: 44% / 56%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Montreal controlled the ice—55% of shot attempts—yet lost 3-2 to Boston in a game where expected goals split 4.80–4.82. That split said dead-even. The scoreboard begged to differ, and the answer sat between the pipes.

The Canadiens' evening vanished at the highest-leverage moments. They went 0/8 on high-danger chances, the kind of drought that hardens quickly into regret. Montreal's 55% shot advantage never translated downstairs; they scored twice off the rush on 29 chances but found nothing in the core. They underperformed their expected goals by 2.80, pouring possession into a game that wouldn't repay it.

Boston was equally silent on grade-A looks, going 0/9 on high-danger chances. Yet they broke through. Twice on the rush (26 chances), three times total—and that margin is J. Swayman. He stopped at 0.929 save percentage, 26 saves on 28 shots, in a performance that ran 2.80 goals better than expected. When both teams miss this badly—17 combined high-danger chances, zero conversions for Montreal, zero for Boston—the goaltender who turns that into a win becomes the differentiator.

S. Montembeault made 20 saves on 23 shots (0.870 SV%), yet it wasn't enough. Montreal's underperformance of their xG by 2.80 cost them. Boston, despite underperforming their 4.82 xG by 1.82, still found three. The asymmetry was Swayman's work.

Neither team crashed the crease with conviction: both created 5 rebound opportunities, both converted zero. Neither dominated the rush—Montreal 2/29, Boston 2/26. The game was an evenly distributed mess, which should have meant an evenly distributed result. Instead, one goaltender's save percentage wrote 3-2 across the scoreboard.

D. Pastrnak's 2 assists in 20:15 framed the attack. N. Zadorov added 1 in 21:05. For Montreal, N. Suzuki had 1 assist in 24:35.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BOS0 / 9 · 2.77 xG
MTL0 / 8 · 1.71 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BOS2 / 18 · 1.73 xG
MTL2 / 25 · 2.62 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BOS1 / 36 · 0.32 xG
MTL0 / 38 · 0.47 xG

BOS went 0-for-9 from high danger on 2.77 expected goals — 2.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BOS
3 G · 4.82 xG · -1.8
MTL
2 G · 4.80 xG · -2.8
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. SwaymanBOS
+2.8
S. MontembeaultMTL
+1.8

BOS finished -1.8 against expected, MTL -2.8 — J. Swayman (BOS) saved 2.8 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BOS
SNAP3/28
SLAP0/3
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/4
WRIST0/2
OTHER0/23
MTL
SNAP1/33
SLAP0/9
TIP IN0/7
BACKHAND1/3
WRIST0/0
OTHER0/19
BOS
MTL
Off the rush
2 G on 26 · 3.00 xG
2 G on 29 · 2.43 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5 · 0.53 xG
0 G on 5 · 0.89 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BOS went 3-for-28, MTL 1-for-33. BOS scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
D. Pastrnak
#88 · R · BOS
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 20:15 TOI · -1
N. Suzuki
#14 · C · MTL
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:35 TOI
N. Zadorov
#91 · D · BOS
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:05 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • J. Swayman (BOS) stopped 2.8 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 17 high-danger chances combined (MTL 8, BOS 9).
  • MTL couldn't convert — 0/8 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • BOS couldn't convert — 0/9 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • MTL was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 29 rush chances.
  • BOS was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • MTL created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • BOS created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • MTL underperformed xG by 2.8 — wasted quality chances.
  • BOS underperformed xG by 1.8 — wasted quality chances.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · BOS at MTL · 7:00 PM ET

Bruins at Canadiens: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 4:02 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
MTL
Model favorite
47%
53%
BOS50MTL

MTL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BOS 2.52.7 MTL; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

BOS← edge
edge →MTL
47.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
49.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.39xGF / 602.41
2.67xGA / 602.62
2.22Goals for / gm2.24
1.82Goals against / gm1.96
1.023PDO — luck, not skill1.018

MTL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.023 vs 1.018) says BOS has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model can't decide. It projects a Boston win by 2.5 to 2.7 goals but gives Montreal 53% win probability—the hockey equivalent of flipping a coin. There's no edge here.

The Bruins are hotter by record, sitting 8-2-0 in their last ten. The Canadiens are underwater: -6 in goal differential over that same span. But dig deeper and the contradiction dissolves. Both teams' underlying metrics are nearly identical. Boston holds 47.0% expected goals share at 5v5; Montreal sits at 48.0%. Their Corsi percentages are identical at 49.0% apiece. This is not a gap between a dominant and a struggling team. It's a gap between two evenly matched ones, with Boston getting hot at exactly the right time.

The complication: both teams are running lucky, and luck expires. Boston's PDO sits at 1.023—high enough to regress hard. Montreal's is 1.018. Both of these numbers tell you the same story: unsustainable results propping up records that don't quite match the underlying play. Add in the goaltending situation—J. Dobes and J. Korpisalo are both on the back-to-back—and you have two tired opponents leaning on performance that won't hold.

Where this game tips depends on the edge players. Cole Caufield leads Montreal's scoring with 33 goals, but his expected production (0.97 xG/60) doesn't quite match that output. His 20.0% shooting rate explains the gap; regression is waiting. Oliver Kapanen's 0.83 xG/60 is cleaner, and his 4 hard-chance goals suggest a forward who converts opportunities rather than just generating them.

Boston counters with Viktor Arvidsson, who generates at 1.04 xG/60—the most dangerous rate on the ice. He's cashed 18 goals with 13.0% shooting, which is sustainable talent, not luck. Tanner Jeannot runs just 0.75 xG/60 but has found 6 goals anyway, leaning on a 2-hard-chance advantage to overcome a modest 8.3% shooting rate.

The defensive anchors matter too. Elias Lindholm is Boston's weak link; Mike Matheson is Montreal's. In a game this tight, how well each team's defense can shelter their goaltenders and limit the other's best shooters will decide it.

This is as close to a true toss-up as you'll find. Boston has momentum. Montreal has more even 5v5 play. Both will regress. The team that avoids the biggest collapse wins.

Data: MoneyPuck 5v5 models, NHL API

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
MTL
Cole Caufield33G 16A
0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh
Oliver Kapanen19G 12A
0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters