Sun, Jan 11, 2026·TD Garden, Boston
Pittsburgh Penguins 0, Boston Bruins 1
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 59% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 010 | 010 | 07 | 027 |
| BOS | 110 | 05 | 04 | 119 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 11:00BOSViktor ArvidssonGWGAssists: Henri Jokiharju, Casey Mittelstadt · Backhand, 0.06 xG0–1
Penalties (8)
- P1 2:21PITTommy Novak: Hooking2 min
- P1 6:02PITJustin Brazeau: Hooking2 min
- P1 18:23PITEvgeni Malkin: High sticking2 min
- P2 4:25PITBrett Kulak: Holding2 min
- P2 8:35PITBrett Kulak: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P2 11:36BOSMark Kastelic: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P3 1:48PITJustin Brazeau: Interference2 min
- P3 2:23BOSCasey Mittelstadt: Hooking2 min
Replay
Watch the game unfold on the ice: every shot, hit, turnover and faceoff appears as it happened, then fades. Drag the timeline to jump; goals are marked on it.
20:00
P1
- P1 20:00Crosby won the faceoff against Zacha
- Goal
- Shot
- Miss
- Block
- Hit
- Takeaway
- Giveaway
- Faceoff
- Penalty
The numbers
Team totals, side by side.
Line combinations that worked
Model-basedEach team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestNovak – Brazeau – Kindel7:56
xG 0.72–0.22 (77%)attempts 12–6goals 0–1
- Malkin – Hayes – Chinakhov8:10
xG 0.41–0.20 (68%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
- Malkin – Crosby – Rakell2:49
xG 0.13–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Crosby – Rakell – Mantha11:05
xG 0.67–0.61 (52%)attempts 13–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestLetang – Kulak16:26
xG 1.11–0.69 (62%)attempts 22–17goals 0–0
- Karlsson – Wotherspoon12:10
xG 0.67–0.44 (60%)attempts 16–11goals 0–1
- Clifton – Shea9:27
xG 0.15–0.39 (29%)attempts 8–9goals 0–0
Boston Bruins
Forward lines
- bestKuraly – Jeannot – Kastelic8:55
xG 0.84–0.71 (54%)attempts 15–11goals 0–0
- Lindholm – Pastrnak – Khusnutdinov10:51
xG 0.48–0.58 (45%)attempts 15–12goals 0–0
- Arvidsson – Zacha – Mittelstadt9:27
xG 0.14–0.31 (31%)attempts 5–7goals 1–0
- Eyssimont – Steeves – Minten5:40
xG 0.07–0.27 (20%)attempts 2–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestZadorov – Jokiharju17:08
xG 0.93–0.48 (66%)attempts 20–15goals 1–0
- Zadorov – McAvoy2:34
xG 0.00–0.13 (0%)attempts 0–3goals 0–0
- McAvoy – Aspirot9:43
xG 0.37–0.69 (35%)attempts 10–14goals 0–0
How the game flowed
Model-basedChance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.
Running total of expected goals for each team. Steep climbs are spells of pressure; dots are goals. Shaded bands mark power plays (team colour), 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 (grey) and empty nets.
Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute
Win probability
Model-basedHow each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.
BOS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line BOS is favoured, below it PIT. Dots are goals.
Did the better team win?
Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.
Based on shot quality alone, Pittsburgh Penguins win this game 59% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (BOS − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).