Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
at

BOS

Boston Bruins

4-2-0

LAK

Los Angeles Kings

0-2-1

Has last change

Saturday, October 17

9:00 PM ET · Crypto.com Arena

The short version

Before the game

The Bruins roll four lines; the Kings lean on their top six

The Kings haven’t won in three. The Bruins have won two in a row, the last a 5-1 rout of Philadelphia. Los Angeles has had more of the chances over recent games and has home ice. Boston can make it interesting if they keep dangerous shots away.

The Kings haven’t won in three. The Bruins have won two in a row, the last a 5-1 rout of Philadelphia. Los Angeles has had more of the chances over recent games and has home ice. Boston’s best way through is keeping dangerous shots away.

The Bruins and the Kings sit at opposite ends for depth.

Who to watch

  • Haunts themMorgan Geekie has four goals in six games against Los Angeles since 2023-24.
  • Haunts themArtemi Panarin has six goals in ten games against Boston since 2023-24, most of them with the Rangers.
  • Still outMichael Eyssimont hasn’t played yet this season.
  • Old teamTanner Jeannot faces his old team, Los Angeles.

  1. The Bruins roll four lines; the Kings lean on their top six

    On depth, Boston is one of the league’s best and Los Angeles is the league’s worst. That’s about as far apart as two teams get.

    The call The Bruins spread their forward ice time deeper down the lineup than the Kings.

    Depth: Boston 4th, Los Angeles 32nd

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 6 and 3 games this season

  2. Bruisers against finesse

    The Bruins are around the middle of the league for physicality, at the bruising end; the Kings are near the bottom of the league, at the finesse end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Bruins hit more than the Kings in the close stretches of the game.

    Physicality: Boston 12th, Los Angeles 26th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 6 and 3 games this season

These calls are written by fixed rules from the numbers below, and saved as they stand at puck drop. After the game, each one will be checked against what happened.

Style fingerprints

How Boston and Los Angeles play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Boston BruinsLos Angeles KingsLeague averageLikely range

Each scale runs from the league’s lowest team on the left to its highest on the right. Numbers blend last season with the 6 and 3 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 6 games for Boston, 3 for Los Angeles. Expect these to swing a lot, which is why the likely ranges are so wide.

The biggest differences

Show all 18 traitsHide the full set

Offense

  • Shot volume
    SelectiveRelentless

    • Boston: 55.2 shot attempts per 6019th of 32

      Boston: 53.8 shot attempts per 6021st of 32

    • Los Angeles: 57.9 shot attempts per 6011th of 32

      Los Angeles: 54.2 shot attempts per 6019th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Boston: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot22nd of 32

      Boston: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot19th of 32

    • Los Angeles: a 5.8% chance of scoring on the average shot31st of 32

      Los Angeles: a 5.8% chance of scoring on the average shot23rd of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Boston: 10.2% of chances come from rebounds16th of 32

      Boston: 2.2% of chances come from rebounds32nd of 32

    • Los Angeles: 10.0% of chances come from rebounds27th of 32

      Los Angeles: 9.3% of chances come from rebounds17th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Boston: 7.3% of chances come right after a turnover17th of 32

      Boston: 8.5% of chances come right after a turnover15th of 32

    • Los Angeles: 6.6% of chances come right after a turnover32nd of 32

      Los Angeles: 12.5% of chances come right after a turnover7th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Boston: 31.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen31st of 32

      Boston: 30.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen28th of 32

    • Los Angeles: 29.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen32nd of 32

      Los Angeles: 28.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen32nd of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Boston: 28.7% of shots come from within 20 feet30th of 32

      Boston: 28.6% of shots come from within 20 feet26th of 32

    • Los Angeles: 30.3% of shots come from within 20 feet19th of 32

      Los Angeles: 33.0% of shots come from within 20 feet15th of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Boston: 57.0 shot attempts allowed per 6017th of 32

      Boston: 54.2 shot attempts allowed per 6015th of 32

    • Los Angeles: 56.1 shot attempts allowed per 6016th of 32

      Los Angeles: 55.6 shot attempts allowed per 6017th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Boston: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against12th of 32

      Boston: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot against12th of 32

    • Los Angeles: a 5.9% chance of scoring on the average shot against3rd of 32

      Los Angeles: a 5.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against3rd of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Boston: 0.41 defensive breakdowns per 6017th of 32

      Boston: 0.64 defensive breakdowns per 6022nd of 32

    • Los Angeles: 0.40 defensive breakdowns per 6012th of 32

      Los Angeles: 0.44 defensive breakdowns per 6017th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Boston: +0.23 goals saved above expected per 602nd of 32

      Boston: +1.02 goals saved above expected per 607th of 32

    • Los Angeles: +0.03 goals saved above expected per 6029th of 32

      Los Angeles: −2.40 goals saved above expected per 6032nd of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Boston: 82.5 shots per 60, both teams combined13th of 32

      Boston: 80.3 shots per 60, both teams combined16th of 32

    • Los Angeles: 81.7 shots per 60, both teams combined17th of 32

      Los Angeles: 79.2 shots per 60, both teams combined19th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Boston: forecheck score 92 (100 is league average)21st of 32Boston: 21.9 forecheck plays recorded per 6018th of 32

      Boston: forecheck score 85 (100 is league average)23rd of 32Boston: 21.7 forecheck plays recorded per 6022nd of 32

    • Los Angeles: forecheck score 105 (100 is league average)11th of 32Los Angeles: 23.2 forecheck plays recorded per 6013th of 32

      Los Angeles: forecheck score 117 (100 is league average)8th of 32Los Angeles: 27.3 forecheck plays recorded per 609th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Boston: hit score 105 (100 is league average)12th of 32Boston: 29.2 hits recorded per 608th of 32

      Boston: hit score 101 (100 is league average)16th of 32Boston: 30.9 hits recorded per 6013th of 32

    • Los Angeles: hit score 85 (100 is league average)26th of 32Los Angeles: 21.9 hits recorded per 6029th of 32

      Los Angeles: hit score 75 (100 is league average)28th of 32Los Angeles: 20.2 hits recorded per 6030th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Boston: 43.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six4th of 32

      Boston: 44.6% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six5th of 32

    • Los Angeles: 40.1% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six32nd of 32

      Los Angeles: 39.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six32nd of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Boston: 7.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play18th of 32

      Boston: 4.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play26th of 32

    • Los Angeles: 7.0 expected goals per 60 on the power play24th of 32

      Los Angeles: 6.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play21st of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Boston: 7.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded20th of 32

      Boston: 7.9 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded22nd of 32

    • Los Angeles: 7.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded9th of 32

      Los Angeles: 7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded19th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Boston: 0.6 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded31st of 32

      Boston: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded28th of 32

    • Los Angeles: 1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded8th of 32

      Los Angeles: 2.3 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded3rd of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Boston: 0.26 more penalties taken than drawn per 6032nd of 32

      Boston: 0.50 more penalties taken than drawn per 6024th of 32

    • Los Angeles: 0.06 more penalties taken than drawn per 6021st of 32

      Los Angeles: 0.33 more penalties taken than drawn per 6021st of 32

Forecheck pressure and physicality are arena-adjusted scores; switch “Hits and takeaways” to Raw in the settings to see the numbers as recorded. How the arena adjustment works.

Lines and deployment

Los Angeles is at home, so their coach changes last and chooses who plays against whom.

How good, against the same line or pair on other teamsHow much, low to high (not good or bad)

Lines and pairs are numbered by 5-on-5 ice time together over each team’s last 10 games (6 and 3 so far), with each older game counting half as much as the one after it, so the latest combinations come first. With so few games, each group’s results are pulled toward the average for its line number.

Boston Bruins

Los Angeles Kings

Worth knowing

  • Boston C. McAvoy has been a scratch all season. He is a top-pair defenseman.
  • Boston M. Eyssimont has not played this season. He is one of their more valuable skaters.
  • Los Angeles M. Zuccarello is out week to week, reported after he played in their last game. He is a top-six forward.

Who Los Angeles is likely to send against whom

Each strip shows how one Los Angeles group’s 5-on-5 time at home has been split across opponents’ four forward lines. Tonight those lines are Boston’s, named in each box.

Boston’s lines tonightL1 Pastrnak · Zacha · GeekieL2 Lindholm · Mittelstadt · HagensL3 Jeannot · Kastelic · PoitrasL4 Peterka · Khusnutdinov · Minten

Los Angeles forward lines against Boston forward lines

  • L1Kempe · Panarin · ByfieldBOS L127%BOS L213%BOS L343%BOS L417%
  • L2Zuccarello · Turcotte · LaferriereBOS L142%BOS L219%BOS L325%BOS L414%
  • L3Haula · Armia · MooreBOS L140%BOS L244%BOS L310%BOS L47%
  • L4BOS L1–BOS L2–BOS L3–BOS L4–

Los Angeles defense pairs against Boston forward lines

  • P1Gustafsson · ClarkeBOS L118%BOS L239%BOS L330%BOS L413%
  • P2Doughty · DumoulinBOS L149%BOS L213%BOS L328%BOS L49%
  • P3Ceci · AndersonBOS L137%BOS L227%BOS L321%BOS L414%

Based on 1 Los Angeles home game this season, so treat it as a habit forming, not a certainty. Faded rows have under ten minutes. With no line matching, each group would face an opposing line about as often as that line is on the ice; a number well above that means the coach is sending that group out against it on purpose.

Special teams

Each power play set against the penalty killers it will face.

Show

Boston power play against Los Angeles penalty kill

  • Boston power play

    7.4 expected goals per 60 · 18th of 32

  • Los Angeles penalty kill

    7.3 expected goals allowed per 60 · 9th of 32

Boston power play

PP156% of the time

Creates 6.7 expected goals per 60

  • M. LohreiQuarterback
  • D. Pastrnakboth unitsTrigger
  • M. GeekieDistributor
  • P. ZachaNet-front
  • E. LindholmNet-front

PP243% of the time

Creates 6.0 expected goals per 60

  • H. LindholmQuarterback
  • D. Pastrnakboth unitsTrigger
  • J. Peterka
  • J. Hagens
  • C. MittelstadtDistributor

 

Where Boston’s last 140 power-play shots came from. Bigger dots are more dangerous.

Los Angeles penalty kill

Starts the kill

Second wave

Spot duty

Units and penalty-kill roles use each team’s last 10 games; power-play role tags use this season and last, counting only games with the player’s current team; the map shows the last 140 power-play shots. Point at a power-play name to see his shots on the map.

Goaltending

Is each goalie stopping more than he should, and what is his team asking him to face?

Showagainst

J. Swayman59 starts · 1703 shots, this season and last

+33.6 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.964 868 shots
Medium-danger save %
.898 567 shots
High-danger save %
.754 268 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.9
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.31
Quality starts
73%

Helping, or hung out to dry?

System and goalie both goodGoalie bailing them outGoalie giving back what the system earnsTrouble everywhereTeam allows fewer chances ← → more chancesJ. SwaymanM. DiPietroD. KuemperA. Forsberg

D. Kuemper49 starts · 1293 shots, this season and last

−6.8 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.969 635 shots
Medium-danger save %
.857 476 shots
High-danger save %
.692 182 shots
Shots faced per 60
25.8
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.36
Quality starts
51%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Swayman: +33.6 goals saved above expected in 59 starts
    • D. Kuemper: −6.8 goals saved above expected in 49 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Swayman: 28.9 shots faced per 60
    • D. Kuemper: 25.8 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Swayman: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
    • D. Kuemper: the average shot he faces has a 7.0% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Swayman: 0.31 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • D. Kuemper: 0.36 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Swayman: a typical wait of 68 seconds between shots
    • D. Kuemper: a typical wait of 77 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Swayman: a quality start 73% of the time
    • D. Kuemper: a quality start 51% of the time

J. Swayman, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

D. Kuemper, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

J. Swayman5 starts · 131 shots, this season

+5.1 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.972 71 shots
Medium-danger save %
.976 42 shots
High-danger save %
.667 18 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.4
Quality starts
80%

Helping, or hung out to dry?

System and goalie both goodGoalie bailing them outGoalie giving back what the system earnsTrouble everywhereTeam allows fewer chances ← → more chancesJ. SwaymanM. DiPietroD. KuemperA. Forsberg

D. Kuemper2 starts · 59 shots, this season

−3.9 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.969 32 shots
Medium-danger save %
.667 18 shots
High-danger save %
.667 9 shots
Shots faced per 60
30.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.51
Quality starts
50%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • J. Swayman: +5.1 goals saved above expected in 5 starts
    • D. Kuemper: −3.9 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • J. Swayman: 26.3 shots faced per 60
    • D. Kuemper: 30.2 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • J. Swayman: the average shot he faces has a 6.9% chance of going in
    • D. Kuemper: the average shot he faces has a 7.5% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • J. Swayman: 0.4 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • D. Kuemper: 0.51 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • J. Swayman: a typical wait of 66 seconds between shots
    • D. Kuemper: a typical wait of 72 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • J. Swayman: a quality start 80% of the time
    • D. Kuemper: a quality start 50% of the time

J. Swayman, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

D. Kuemper, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

The menus list every goalie on each team, busiest this season first; the site does not yet know who will start. Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie whose team gives up many cross-ice passes looks worse here than he really is.

Where the goals come from

How each team’s goals are scored, or allowed, against the league average.

Show goals
BostonLos AngelesLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play57.9%61.5%
  • Power play19.2%17.1%
  • Rebound6.4%4.7%
  • Empty net5.4%4.3%
  • Off a turnover6.4%3.8%
  • Goalie pulled2%4.3%
  • Shorthanded1%3.4%
  • Off a faceoff win1.7%0.9%

297 Boston goals and 234 Los Angeles goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play52.9%33.3%
  • Power play17.6%22.2%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net5.9%0%
  • Off a turnover17.6%11.1%
  • Goalie pulled5.9%11.1%
  • Shorthanded0%22.2%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

17 Boston goals and 9 Los Angeles goals scored this season. Each row has its own scale.

These mixes are mostly luck: over three seasons, teams’ goals came from much the same places, and most of the differences here didn’t last. Each team page shows how much luck alone can move each row.

Data notes

Team pages: Boston Bruins · Los Angeles Kings