Backcheck
Recap · BOS at CBJ

Bruins run the Blue Jackets off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 9:36 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
BOS
Boston Bruins
4
Home
CBJ
Columbus Blue Jackets
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

6.03Expected goals2.62
70% share for the better side
39Shot attempts (SOG)25
14High-danger chances2
85Corsi (all attempts)49
Score-adjusted: 69% / 32%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Bruins won 4-3 in a shootout, but the underlying metrics suggest they could have won more decisively. They controlled 70% of expected goals (6.03–2.62), yet two dynamics kept the game closer than the data warranted. J. Greaves (CBJ) was exceptional, saving 3.03 goals above expected on 36 saves. Boston underperformed its xG by 2.03 goals despite generating the superior chances.

Columbus managed 39% of shot attempts at 5v5, which constrained their offensive ceiling. Boston had 14 high-danger chances compared to the Blue Jackets' 2—a quality gap that essentially decided the outcome. The Bruins also owned a shot quality edge: 0.071 xG per shot versus 0.053, which compounded their volume advantage.

Three players drove the result. P. Zacha (BOS) scored twice with an assist in 18:07. V. Arvidsson (BOS) collected three assists in 15:14. C. McAvoy (BOS) added a goal and assist while logging 26:09.

Columbus found one reliable outlet: the rush. The Blue Jackets converted 3 of 23 rush chances, an efficient rate. Boston relied less on transition—2 goals on 37 rush attempts—but the Bruins won the 5v5 battle that determined the game.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BOS1 / 14 · 3.60 xG
CBJ0 / 2 · 0.47 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BOS1 / 15 · 1.68 xG
CBJ3 / 16 · 1.75 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BOS1 / 56 · 0.75 xG
CBJ0 / 31 · 0.40 xG

BOS went 1-for-14 from high danger on 3.60 expected goals — 2.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BOS
4 G · 6.03 xG · -2.0
CBJ
3 G · 2.62 xG · +0.4
01234567
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. SwaymanBOS
-0.4
J. GreavesCBJ
+3.0

BOS finished -2.0 against expected, CBJ +0.4 — J. Greaves (CBJ) saved 3.0 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BOS
SNAP1/26
WRIST1/15
SLAP0/8
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/28
CBJ
SNAP2/15
WRIST0/9
SLAP0/3
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/15
BOS
CBJ
Off the rush
2 G on 37 · 4.23 xG
3 G on 23 · 2.05 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3 · 0.43 xG
0 G on 2 · 0.38 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BOS went 1-for-26, CBJ 2-for-15. CBJ scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
P. Zacha
#18 · C · BOS
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 18:07 TOI · +1
V. Arvidsson
#71 · L · BOS
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 15:14 TOI · +1
C. McAvoy
#73 · D · BOS
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 26:09 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • CBJ had the shot volume but the chances weren't dangerous.
  • J. Greaves (CBJ) stopped 3.0 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 16 high-danger chances combined (CBJ 2, BOS 14).
  • BOS had the higher quality looks — 0.071 xG/shot vs 0.053.
  • CBJ was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • BOS was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 37 rush chances.
  • BOS created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • BOS underperformed xG by 3.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • J. Greaves (CBJ) saved 3.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • J. Greaves was a wall on HD chances — 93% SV on 14 high-danger shots.
  • BOS power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 18 PP shots (2.18 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · BOS at CBJ · 5:00 PM ET

The Blue Jackets are the model's lean over the Bruins — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 12, 9:26 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

56%
CBJ
Model favorite
44%
56%
BOS50CBJ

CBJ by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BOS 2.42.8 CBJ; 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 →CBJ
47.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
49.0%Corsi%51.0%
2.39xGF / 602.63
2.67xGA / 602.43
2.22Goals for / gm2.12
1.82Goals against / gm1.98
1.023PDO — luck, not skill1.003

CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.023 vs 1.003) says BOS has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects Boston to outscore Columbus by 2.4–2.8 goals on average, yet hands the Blue Jackets 56% win probability in a single game—a gap rooted in regression. Columbus controls underlying play: 52.0% expected goals share versus Boston's 47.0%, with a matching Corsi advantage (51.0% to 49.0%). The Bruins' edge comes from unsustainable finishing. Their 1.023 PDO far exceeds what shot quality should produce, and that gap unwinds in short sample.

Boston's scoring leaders run hot. Viktor Arvidsson carries 18G on 1.04 xG/60 while shooting 13.0%—both well above expectation. Tanner Jeannot shows 6G on 0.75 xG/60 at 8.3% shooting. Columbus counters with Boone Jenner (11G, 0.98 xG/60, 9.6% shooting) and Mathieu Olivier (12G, 0.89 xG/60, 13.3% shooting), whose rates suggest more sustainable output.

Goaltending introduces uncertainty. Both E. Merzlikins and J. Swayman work back-to-backs, creating relief-start risk.

The Blue Jackets own the edge. Their underlying play validates it. Boston's PDO unwinds.

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
CBJ
Boone Jenner11G 21A
0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters