xJawn NHL expected goals

← Playoffs

Boston Bruins

Atlantic · 2-4

6 GP
2025-26 · playoffs
Adjusts with rink filters
shots for◀ 5v5 offense
shots against5v5 defense ▶
How to read this map

One rink, both ends: what BOS generates on the left, what it concedes on the right. Every attempt is a Gaussian bump of height = its model xG, summed per game. The controls switch the surface (xG heatmapvs league, the league baseline at the same strength) and the markers: × goal · on net · missed · small blocked.

The page opens at 5v5; empty-net attempts are excluded throughout, and the strength buckets segregate them anyway — which is why the empty-net control greys out unless the view can actually contain one. Everything inside the outlined box moves with the filters; everything below it does not.

Observed production

5v5 · playoffs
for against
axis spans ±164% of league average · centre = average · right = more
Goalsteam
34th pctl15 56th pctl
Shotsteam
109 19th pctl125 31st pctl
Attemptsteam
249 19th pctl284 38th pctl
xGteam
10.1 19th pctl11.5 44th pctl
xGF%share of team xG
46.8%44th pctl
0% 50% = even split · gray = league middle 50% / 90% 100%

Percentiles and the gray spread rank against all 32 teams recomputed under the current filter — every bar and band here moves together, so a slice never ranks against a different slice's league.

Rolling xGF%

5v5 · playoffs
Per-game chance share, smoothed. drag the slider to set the window

Model estimates

🔒 full season · 5v5
Season-long ratings — the filters above don't apply here. goals vs league average · bar grows from average
Shootingour skaters · on our shots
+1.163rd pctl
249 attempts · 100% by rated shooters
Savingour goalies · on shots faced
Jeremy Swayman +1.16 G · 279 shots
+1.275th pctl
Jeremy Swayman 279 · Joonas Korpisalo 5 shots faced
Shooting againsttheir skaters · on shots faced
-0.863rd pctl
sign-flipped — positive means they shot worse than average
Saving againsttheir goalies · on our shots
-0.481st pctl
negative means their goalies stopped more than average
−6league average+6

These four are not centred at zero: the league average of each sits well away from it, and the two against columns barely vary between teams, since every team faces roughly average opposition. So the level of a bar is not the signal — its rank is. They are shown because they genuinely move adjusted xGF% below, and folding them into the two own-team rows would have hidden half of that.

Adjusted xGF%skill-weighted chance share
shooting +2.57 ppsaving against -0.99 ppshooting against -1.72 ppsaving +2.44 pp
49.1%50th pctl · +2.29 pp
0% 50% = even split · gray = league middle 50% / 90% 100%
How it's built, and what it isn't
unadjusted 46.8% +shooting +2.57+saving against -0.99+shooting against -1.72+saving +2.44 = adjusted 49.1%

How it's builtEvery 5v5 shot is re-scored with σ(logit(xG) + shooter − goalie) and both ends re-summed. Both skill terms land on every shot — one team's for side, the other's against side — so the league share still averages 50%. The two moves are taken in that order and sum exactly to the total; shares don't decompose additively, so a side-by-side split would not close.

What it isn'tA descriptive re-score of shots already taken, not a forecast. Against future goal share the combined adjustment is indistinguishable from plain xGF% (+0.019 r, p = 0.192); only the shooting half shows a small honest lift (+0.026, p = 0.020), and the saving half contributes nothing forward-looking. The premise underneath is itself unestablished — xGF% over GF% is +0.040, p = 0.246. Read it as what this roster's skill was worth on these shots — nothing more.

The four segments are the four rows above, in order. They are four and not two because η puts both rating terms on every shot: the shots we took carry our shooters and the opposing goalie, and the shots we faced carry their shooters and ours. Over a full season the two “against” terms would sit near league average and contribute nothing — but the ratings are not centred at zero this season, so they do move the number, and hiding them inside a single “shots faced” figure would have left half the adjustment unexplained.

Season context

descriptive · not modeled
How the season was played, not how well. Not a modeled component: each is its own metric (a rate, a TOI share, or opponents' net xG-RAPM), shown with a league percentile only where one exists, never added together. Not a grade.
Ice timeshare by strength
5v5 76%PPPK 14%
-3.1PP − PK min/60
Score stateTOI by game state
trail 43%tied 34%lead 24%
trails a lot
Goalie workloadstarter's share of shots
98%of 5v5 shots against
Schedule strengthopponents' net xG-RAPM
not available in the pipeline
0league average100 pctl
Full table · all numbers
FamilyStatValue (current slice)
Observed ◆ filtered Goals for / against 9 / 15
Observed ◆ filtered xG for / against 10.1 / 11.5
Observed ◆ filtered Shots for / against 109 / 125
Observed ◆ filtered Attempts for / against 249 / 284
Modeled 🔒 5v5 Shooting — our skaters · on our shots +1.1 G 63rd pctl
Modeled 🔒 5v5 Saving — our goalies · on shots faced +1.2 G 75th pctl
Modeled 🔒 5v5 Shooting against — their skaters · on shots faced -0.8 G 63rd pctl
Modeled 🔒 5v5 Saving against — their goalies · on our shots -0.4 G 81st pctl
Modeled 🔒 5v5Unadjusted xGF%46.8%
Modeled 🔒 5v5↳ shooting shift+2.57 pp
Modeled 🔒 5v5↳ saving against shift-0.99 pp
Modeled 🔒 5v5↳ shooting against shift-1.72 pp
Modeled 🔒 5v5↳ saving shift+2.44 pp
Modeled 🔒 5v5Adjusted xGF% 49.1% 50th pctl
ContextIce time — share by strength-3.1
ContextScore state — TOI by game statetrails a lot
ContextGoalie workload — starter's share of shots98%
ContextSchedule strength — opponents' net xG-RAPM

Observed values reflect the active rink filters; modeled values are fixed at their full-season 5v5 fit.

Modeled ratings come from joint__baseline_xg__42ccb89b (as of 2026-06-14) — a separate surface from the box-score xG model badged in the footer.