Fraser Minten and JJ Peterka have both gone without a point in all five Bruins losses this season. If you’re backing a Chicago upset, their point unders offer two ways to build around that view. Elias Lindholm’s shot under gives you a different choice: he can help set up a goal and still finish with two shots or fewer.
These Blackhawks parlay picks compare those three Boston players in Bruins losses. You can choose the scoring restriction or the shot limit that fits your view of the game; there’s no need to take all three. These are individually priced offers.
Blackhawks parlay picks: three Boston unders to compare
Minten’s and Lindholm’s longer records cover their Boston games since October 2025. Peterka’s Boston record consists of his first 14 appearances this season, including just five losses. Each player’s loss and overall records use the same club, dates and participation rules through the October 31 research cutoff. Historical hit rates describe those games, not future or combined-parlay probabilities.
| Player & prop | Odds | In Bruins losses | All Boston games |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraser Minten Under 0.5 points Since October 2025 |
−160 | 87.0% 40 of 46 Boston losses |
69.6% 71 of 102 appearances |
| JJ Peterka Under 0.5 points This season |
−110 | 100.0% 5 of 5 Boston losses |
50.0% 7 of 14 appearances |
| Elias Lindholm Under 2.5 shots on goal Since October 2025 |
−180 | 82.9% 34 of 41 Boston losses |
76.4% 68 of 89 appearances |
Fraser Minten: under 0.5 points at −160
Minten gives the Chicago-win idea a scoring angle with a longer Boston track record. He’s often finished without a point when the Bruins have lost, and his last two games ended that way in 15:34 and 15:50 of ice time. Those weren’t missed games or token shifts.
The point under asks him to finish with neither a goal nor an assist. His assist-only under was −370, compared with −160 for no points. The heavier assist price leaves room for him to score a goal; the point under pays more because either a goal or an assist beats it. In Boston losses, that extra restriction reduced the historical clearances from 43 of 46 to 40 of 46.
His recent San Jose game shows how quickly he can beat the point under. Minten had a goal and an assist on four shots in 18:15 during Boston’s 6–4 win. He’s averaging about 16½ minutes this season, roughly a minute more than in the older Boston games, and he’s getting power-play time. The case rests on his scoring record in Bruins losses, rather than an assumption that he’ll struggle to get on the ice.
There’s a matchup caution too: Minten picked up a point in both previous Chicago meetings in this window, once with a goal and once with an assist. Boston won both games. If you expect Chicago to win this one, keep those productive head-to-head appearances in mind alongside his quieter losing-game record.
JJ Peterka: under 0.5 points at −110
Peterka offers the lighter point-under price, but his perfect losing-game record comes from only five games. Across his first 14 Boston appearances, he’s had a point in half of them. That makes the split interesting; it’s still a short introduction to his role with the Bruins.
He has a substantial chance to contribute. Peterka is listed on Boston’s expected first line and has averaged about 17 minutes this season. In the last two losses he went without a point despite playing 19:24 and 18:19, taking two and three shots, and spending 3:50 and 1:49 on the power play. The under has survived real opportunities, including chances to pick up an assist.
Immediately before those losses, he had two assists in 17:50 against San Jose. You’re asking him to avoid that kind of contribution entirely: one secondary assist is enough to beat a no-point bet, even if he never scores himself.
His assist-only under was −235 and cleared in 11 of the 14 Boston games, compared with seven for the point under at −110. Both stayed under in the same five losses. The point line offers the larger payout for accepting the risk of a goal as well as an assist; the identical losing-game records don’t make those restrictions equally demanding.
Elias Lindholm: under 2.5 shots on goal at −180
Lindholm is the choice if you’d rather limit a player’s shooting than need him off the scoresheet. He had one shot in each of Boston’s last two losses. In the Carolina game he also had an assist, showing how a shot under can clear when a point under would lose.
The longer record is less consistent than Minten’s point under: Lindholm stayed at two shots or fewer in 34 of 41 Bruins losses. That’s still more frequent than across all his Boston games, and he’s done it in four of five losses this season. Three shots lose the bet; a total of two leaves it under.
Dallas supplied the recent miss. Lindholm took three shots in 20:18 and played 5:24 on the power play. His next two losses brought one shot apiece, but he still played 5:36 on the power play at Carolina. A low shot total can come with plenty of attacking time, so those recent ones shouldn’t be read as a disappearing offensive role.
His two earlier Chicago meetings went in opposite directions: five shots in one, one in the other. The five-shot game is a useful reason to leave room for a busier shooting afternoon, even though his season average ice time is about 16:40 compared with roughly 18 minutes in the older Boston appearances.
Pick the restriction you want to pay for
If you want room for a Bruin to help create a goal, Lindholm’s shot limit allows that. A point under asks for a wholly quiet scoresheet, whether the player shoots or makes the pass. You can choose that restriction without combining all three; one productive Boston sequence could hurt several unders.
Compare the current lines on the Blackhawks–Bruins matchup page, or explore more angles in our NHL coverage.
More picks to build around
Unlock our Premium picks. Free.
Get our sharpest picks, team grades, and projected score in your inbox.