Five shots on goal still left Mason McTavish without a point against Montreal. St. Louis has now been shut out in consecutive games, which puts the central question for a Blues backer in plain view: which contribution would you want to accompany a scoring response?
These Blues parlay picks compare McTavish to record a point with JJ Peterka to finish without one for Boston. McTavish has contributed in four of St. Louis’ five wins this season; Peterka has been held off the scoresheet in all four Bruins losses. Those are small team-specific samples, and the recent evidence challenges both options in different ways.
The premise is a hypothetical St. Louis win over Boston, with the Blues at −115 in the morning DraftKings game snapshot. St. Louis enters 5–6–1 and Boston 9–3–1. The player records describe what has accompanied earlier results, rather than forecasting the winner or the chance that a combination of bets succeeds.
Two contributions to compare alongside a Blues win
Both players’ current-team samples come entirely from this season: twelve St. Louis appearances for McTavish and thirteen Boston appearances for Peterka. Each all-game comparison covers the same period and club. Five Blues wins and four Bruins losses are limited evidence; their percentages should be read with those counts in view.
| Player & prop | Odds | With this result | All games |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mason McTavish 1+ point |
−105 | 80.0% 4 of 5 St. Louis wins |
66.7% 8 of 12 St. Louis appearances |
| JJ Peterka Under 0.5 points |
−150 | 100.0% 4 of 4 Boston losses |
46.2% 6 of 13 Boston appearances |
Individual DraftKings prices were checked in the October 29 morning snapshot. McTavish’s actual 1+ point milestone requires a goal or an assist. Peterka’s under 0.5 points requires neither. Prices and offered combinations can change.
Mason McTavish: 1+ point at −105
McTavish recorded a point in four of five Blues wins (80.0%), compared with eight of twelve St. Louis appearances (66.7%) overall. That is only five winning games, so each result has considerable influence. Earlier appearances for another club are not included in this St. Louis comparison.
The case needs to start with the two recent misses. McTavish went pointless as the Blues lost 4–0 to Carolina and 2–0 to Montreal. He had no shots in 17:08 against the Hurricanes, then five in 17:57 against the Canadiens. The latest shot activity shows he remained involved, but it did not produce a point. It would be misleading to describe him as entering on a scoring streak or assume that five shots make the next contribution inevitable.
He scored a goal in the preceding 6–2 win over Vegas while playing 14:06. The current expected lineup places him at second-line center. Those recent appearances support the participation case; the shutouts still make this a bet on the Blues finding offense that has been absent for two games.
The winning miss is another useful limit: McTavish had no point when St. Louis beat Winnipeg 2–1. The team can win a tight game without him reaching even a one-point requirement. That result stays in the sample rather than being dismissed because it interrupts the pattern.
DraftKings also offered 2+ shots on goal at −230. That reached its mark in four of the same five Blues wins and ten of twelve games overall. It asks for a different contribution and costs substantially more than the −105 point option. The Montreal game illustrates the distinction particularly well: McTavish reached the shot milestone while missing the point milestone. Compare which requirement fits your view, rather than treating them as interchangeable or stacking them as independent evidence.
JJ Peterka: under 0.5 points at −150
Peterka finished without a goal or assist in all four Boston losses, versus six of thirteen Bruins appearances (46.2%) overall. The separation is striking, but four losses remain a very small sample. This uses his Boston games only, without importing earlier appearances for another club.
His latest losing game fits the pattern: no point in Boston’s 2–1 defeat at Carolina, despite two shots and 19:24 of ice time. He is listed at left wing on the expected first line. The under asks him to finish off the scoresheet while playing regular minutes.
The two games before that are clear counterevidence to any claim that Peterka has been quiet. He scored a goal in the win over Nashville, then supplied two assists against San Jose. He played 17:52 and 17:50 in those games. A repeat of either contribution would defeat the point under, and a Boston loss would not prevent him from producing it.
The narrower under 0.5 assists was −295. It also hit in all four Bruins losses, and in ten of thirteen games overall, because a goal without an assist would still satisfy that market. Peterka’s Nashville goal demonstrates that difference. The −150 point under offers a less expensive price, but it requires both parts of his scoring to stay at zero; the assist under leaves one of those routes open.
The four-loss record makes the point under worth comparing around a St. Louis premise, while the first-line role and three points in the two recent wins keep its risk visible. The perfect record describes four past outcomes, not a dependable rule for Peterka in every Boston defeat.
Weigh the scoring response against the broader under
McTavish’s point is the less expensive option and directly asks for a contribution to the offense St. Louis needs to recover. The latest five-shot game is useful activity evidence, with the two shutouts and the Winnipeg winning miss setting clear limits. Peterka’s point under has a cleaner conditional record but fewer games behind it, and it is more demanding than his much shorter assist under.
Choose the requirement that fits your view of this matchup. There is no obligation to add both, and their separate histories cannot be multiplied into a joint probability. They share one game, with any offered same-game combination subject to its own sportsbook price.
Follow the live Blues–Bruins matchup for updates, or read more NHL articles for additional game context.
More picks to build around
Unlock our Premium picks. Free.
Get our sharpest picks, team grades, and projected score in your inbox.