Bruins stunned – Boston’s first year under Marco Sturm turned from a long shot into a 100-point playoff berth, with standout goaltending from Jeremy Swayman and a power play that climbed back into the top half. But the season also exposed stubborn gaps—especially 5-on-5 scorin
When the 2025-26 season ended with the Bruins in the playoffs, it didn’t just beat the standard. It flipped it—turning a club that had been stuck in Eastern Conference cellar territory into a team that landed 100 points and a Stanley Cup Playoffs spot.
The turnaround, to be fair, wasn’t a mystery to everyone. In October, MISRYOUM laid out a “bold predictions” preseason piece that put Boston in the postseason mix. The verdict now: correct.
But the season’s story wasn’t perfect, and the ledger—line by line, percentage by percentage—makes that impossible to ignore.
Marco Sturm’s first year ended with 100 points in the standings and a playoff ticket in hand. Yet the Bruins “still has plenty of work to do” to become the kind of legitimate contender they wanted to be. The gaps weren’t imaginary. They showed up in the very numbers the team chased improvement to control.
Jeremy Swayman bounces back—because last year wasn’t the whole truth. The optimistic call was tied to one thing: the notion that Jeremy Swayman could be far better than the .892 save percentage he produced during a miserable 2024-25 campaign.
He did improve in 2025-26. The 27-year-old netminder earned a finalist nod for the Vezina Trophy. His baseline save percentage came in at .908. which doesn’t jump off the page—but the Bruins’ season didn’t live on one stat alone. Among qualified goalies, Swayman ranked second in the NHL in goals saved above expected with 28.8. The piece of the puzzle that matters for how the Bruins survived: without that kind of performance. a retooling—and flawed—roster likely would have been staring at another lottery pick this spring.
The Bruins also leaned into the physical identity they said they wanted. Cam Neely’s declaration that Boston needed to operate with more “piss and vinegar” largely played out on the ice. with bruisers like Tanner Jeannot. Nikita Zadorov. and Mark Kastelic landing plenty of welts out on the frozen sheet.
The numbers backed it up. Boston ranked second in the NHL in total penalties with 372, and second in penalty minutes per game at 11.9. In total hits, the Bruins ranked sixth overall with 1,861 on the year. But the season’s grit came with a reminder: toughness doesn’t automatically translate into being the best. Three lottery teams—Rangers (2. 112). Panthers (2. 024). and Maple Leafs (1. 870)—ranked first. second. and fifth in total hits. respectively. meaning the Bruins couldn’t assume physicality alone would carry them.
If the power-play rebound was a win, the 5-on-5 scoring leap carried more warning than celebration. The verdict on Boston’s bottom-third status in 2024-25 didn’t translate into what MISRYOUM expected to be a clean stride forward.
In 2024-25, the Bruins ranked 23rd in the NHL in 5-on-5 tallies. A season later, Boston ranked eighth with 183 5-on-5 goals. That’s progress. But it also came with a sense of fragility.
Ten different players scored at least 10 goals, and 18 players recorded at least 15 total points. The season’s biggest surprises included the second line of Pavel Zacha, Viktor Arvidsson, and Casey Mittelstadt. During 583:24 of 5-on-5 ice time, that trio outscored opponents 42-22. Even so. the warning signs were there for what comes next—especially with Arvidsson’s pending free-agent status and several players submitting career-best shooting percentages.
There was also the sense that, even with the scoring uptick, the Bruins could regress—depending on how much of their success was repeatable.
The top line’s production looked strong in some ways and shaky in others. The prediction was that Boston’s top line of David Pastrnak and Morgan Geekie would combine for enough goals to matter—and it did, just not perfectly.
Geekie produced 39 goals in 81 games. Pastrnak, who had scored 30 or more goals in eight consecutive 82-game NHL seasons, scored 29 goals over 77 games in 2025-26. His dip in goal output didn’t kill Boston’s totals. though: he added 71 assists and recorded his fourth straight year with at least 100 points.
Elias Lindholm started strong, especially on the power play, but an ailing back limited him down the stretch. He scored 17 goals and had 48 points over 69 games. Down the stretch, the featured trio—Pastrnak, Lindholm, and Geekie—couldn’t find much traction. In their 347 minutes of 5-on-5 reps, Boston was outscored 19-16.
Then came the power play, where the turnaround felt sharper—and the seasonal math made the improvement clear. MISRYOUM had predicted the Bruins might need personnel shifts after Boston’s power play cashed in on only 15.2 percent of its power-play bids in 2024-25, ranking 29th in the NHL.
That didn’t end up being the main fix. Under assistant coach Steve Spott’s watch, Boston’s man advantage finished ninth in the league with a 23.4 percent success rate. Charlie McAvoy’s growth as a power-play QB played a key role, as he recorded a career-high 61 points over 69 games.
But even with the improved special teams play, the late-season trend still mattered. From Feb. 1 through the end of the regular season—a stretch of 27 total games—Boston converted on only 16.7 percent of its power plays, ranking 28th in the NHL over that span. The Bruins had climbed, then stumbled.
The roster also tried to solve for toughness in a way that didn’t fully land. Mikey Eyssimont was signed as a logical offseason move because of his agitating approach, with the Bruins aiming to be a tougher out. The problem, in MISRYOUM’s view, was that Eyssimont didn’t move the needle enough.
Eyssimont appeared in 56 total games for Boston in 2025-26, often taking in games from the ninth floor as a depth option in Sturm’s lineup.
Boston did have other players who earned the kind of seasonal respect that comes with a different label: the 7th Player Award.
That honor went to 21-year-old Fraser Minten. Over 82 games, Minten looked like a future lineup fixture and served as a dependable, two-way pivot for Sturm. His impact came through in two-way details: breaking up odd-man rushes. hustling to get into shooting lanes. and skating the puck out of trouble. The award’s framing mattered because it contrasted with how Eyssimont’s arrival played out.
Where scoring help was concerned, the Bruins didn’t end up making the blockbuster leap that many expected would define their offseason. MISRYOUM’s preseason hope had Boston pulling off a deal for Colorado winger Martin Necas after he expressed a willingness to hit free agency this summer.
Instead, Necas signed an eight-year contract extension in Colorado in late October with an average annual value of $11.5 million. The winger, described as a speedy Czech forward, could potentially be playing for a Stanley Cup in the coming weeks.
Even with the hypothetical door closing, Boston still didn’t chase the win-now route at the trade deadline. The Bruins stood pat at the NHL’s 2026 trade deadline in March, reversing a fire sale from the previous season. The question MISRYOUM posed after this choice was straightforward: with an overachieving season already in the rearview. surrendering future assets for win-now players would have been short-sighted—especially given the gap between Boston’s retooling roster and the juggernauts still in the NHL playoff picture.
Boston also brought young talent into the mix in a way that matched the expectations set for it. even if the headline-grabbing moment never arrived. MISRYOUM had written that James Hagens shouldn’t be expected to “light the world on fire” as he adjusted to the pro game in the final weeks of the regular season.
Hagens arrived in exactly that kind of supporting role. Across five total games with Boston. including three playoff bouts against Buffalo. the 19-year-old forward showed speed and edge work and offered upside when it came to playmaking capabilities and pace at hockey’s highest level. He still has room to grow entering his first full season in the NHL ranks.
For leadership, Boston didn’t change course the way some would have. The Bruins didn’t name a captain in 2025-26. The decision was tied to resetting the standard and building a new culture with a reworked roster, while keeping its current leadership hierarchy in place.
Marco Sturm had few qualms with Boston playing without a set captain this season. Still. Cam Neely acknowledged earlier this month that Boston has “started discussions” about stitching a “C” into a player’s sweater at some point before next season. MISRYOUM’s own early bold prediction for 2026-27 was that the captaincy would go to David Pastrnak.
And then came the moment the season ultimately had to deliver: the playoff qualification. Boston sneaked into the postseason as the final Wild Card team, an outcome MISRYOUM labeled as “Even better!”
The numbers tell the full story. After a miserable 2024-25 campaign, Boston had been on pace for a competitive—though flawed—team. MISRYOUM had attributed the rebound to stout goaltending and stronger special-teams play. resulting in a 40-31-11 record and the final Wild Card spot in the Eastern Conference.
But Boston ended up with a bigger jump than the prediction: it snagged the first Wild Card spot with a 45-27-10 record, equating to 100 points.
MISRYOUM’s own line from the fall captured how the club’s reset was meant to be read in real time: “It may not be an extended playoff run in 2025-26, but Sturm’s efforts to reset the standard this winter moves this franchise in the right direction.”
In the end. Boston’s playoff berth stood as the correct bet—while the “plenty of work to do” part stayed true. A first season with 100 points can’t hide that the Bruins still need to turn their late-season stretches into a repeatable threat. For a team that stunned expectations, that’s the next test waiting in the dark.
Boston Bruins Marco Sturm Jeremy Swayman Vezina Trophy 2025-26 season Stanley Cup Playoffs power play 5-on-5 goals Fraser Minten David Pastrnak Charlie McAvoy