Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater
← Thu, Oct 9 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at SEA

Kraken hold off the Ducks

FinalThu, Oct 9
ANAAnaheim Ducks1SEASeattle Kraken3
The verdict · earned

The Kraken earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

ANA 1 · SEA 3
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:19 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Anaheim generated far weaker shot quality: 0.037 xG/shot to Seattle's 0.071, which explains how the Ducks' 36 shot attempts yielded only 3.18 expected goals while the Kraken's 31 generated 3.78. But the quality gap understates the reality. ANA underperformed their xG by 2.18 goals, scoring just 1 on 3.18 expected.

The underlying game was close. SEA held 46% of shot attempts (31–36 on goal). High-danger chances went 5–3 to the Kraken. It played like a coin flip until the goaltending tilted the table.

J. Daccord (SEA) was the difference. His 35 saves on 36 shots (0.972 SV%) represented 2.18 goals above expected—a performance that transformed a close game into a rout. L. Dostal, despite outperforming expectation by 0.78 goals (28/31), couldn't overcome ANA's cold offensive night.

SEA struck at the right moments. Jared McCann's wrist shot from the slot (P3, 04:25) was the turning point. The Kraken converted 3 of 27 rush chances and generated 4 rebound opportunities without cashing any, but their timing was superior to ANA's equivalent wastefulness.

Final: ANA 1 – SEA 3

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 9
ANA
1
SEA
3

Kraken hold off the Ducks

Chances 3.2 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kraken earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.18
SEA
3.78
46% of the chances54%

The board read ANA 1, SEA 3. The chances read ANA 3.2, SEA 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SEA
−0.8
goals above expected
SEA3.78 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.18 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks left 2.2 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:21SEAV. Dunn0–1
  2. P1 04:11ANAB. Sennecke1–1
  3. P2 03:50SEAM. Marchment1–2
  4. P3 04:25SEAJ. McCann1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
58 shots
1
Final
104 shots
SEA
46 shots
3
ANA attackSEA attack
ANA SEA Goal
58
shots · 1 in
46
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANASEA
0 / 3
0.69 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.70 xG
1 / 12
1.34 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.29 xG
0 / 72
1.15 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.79 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Daccord
+2.2
SEA · 35/36
B+
L. Dostal
+0.8
ANA · 28/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kraken hold off the Ducks

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 17–5
  1. 02:21SEAV. Dunn(A. Larsson, J. Schwartz)0–1
  2. 04:11ANAB. Sennecke(M. McTavish)1–1
2ndshots 12–11
  1. 03:50SEAM. Marchment(B. Montour)1–2
3rdshots 7–15
  1. 04:25SEAJ. McCann(M. Beniers, J. Eberle)1–3

score reads ANA–SEA

Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.78
SEA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.045
SEA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
37.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.18Expected goals3.78
SEA 54% of the chance quality
36Shots on goal31
3High-danger chances5
87All attempts (Corsi)53
Adjusted for score: ANA 66% · SEA 34%
Faceoffs · SEA won46%off40%neu74%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA0 / 3 · 0.69 xG
SEA1 / 5 · 1.70 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA1 / 12 · 1.34 xG
SEA1 / 13 · 1.29 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 72 · 1.15 xG
SEA1 / 35 · 0.79 xG

ANA went 0-for-72 from low danger on 1.15 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
1 G · 3.18 xG · -2.2
SEA
3 G · 3.78 xG · -0.8
012345

ANA finished -2.2 against expected, SEA -0.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST0/39
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/6
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND1/3
WRAP AROUND0/2
OTHER0/29
SEA
WRIST3/35
SLAP0/7
SNAP0/1
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/7
ANA
SEA
Off the rush
1 G on 35
2.46 xG
3 G on 27
2.12 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.29 xG
0 G on 4
0.46 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-39, SEA 3-for-35. SEA scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
New to these numbers?

Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

xG
Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
HD
High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
Corsi
Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
Adj.
Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
GSAx
Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
PDO
Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
Shot by shot

In the net

Graded on goals saved above expected
L. Dostal
ANA · 28/31 · .903
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.7+0.7
Medium1/131.3+0.3
Low1/350.8-0.2

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

J. Daccord
SEA · 35/36 · .972
+2.2
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium1/121.3+0.3
Low0/721.1+1.1

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

104 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
58 shots
1
Final
104 shots
SEA
46 shots
3
ANA attackSEA attack
ANA SEA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, SEA right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
A. Larsson
#6 · D · —
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:51 on ice · +1
B. Montour
#62 · D · —
0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 21:18 on ice · +1
M. McTavish
#23 · C · —
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:24 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 9
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Model draft
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:32 AMRaw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The model projects a ANA 3.4 - 3.2 SEA game with the Ducks at 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Keys to the game

  • Shutdown Assignment: Kraken. Key matchup: Neutralize Beckett Sennecke (20G, 1.03 xG/60, 8 HD goals)
  • Shutdown Assignment: Ducks. Key matchup: Neutralize Shane Wright (8G, 0.77 xG/60, 4 HD goals)
  • Beckett Sennecke drives the Ducks offense. Beckett Sennecke: 20G 19A, 1.03 xG/60, 8 high-danger goals.

Season 5v5 Numbers

MetricANASEA
xG%50.4%45.7%
Corsi%52.2%46.0%
PDO0.9811.011

Rates from 2025-26 — the 2026-27 sample isn't live yet.

Where the Edges Live

  • The Ducks own the underlying play — 50.4% 5v5 xG vs 45.7%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.2% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression Watch

  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Players to Watch

ANA

  • Beckett Sennecke — 1.03 xG/60, 20G 19A, 8 HD goals, 13.5% shooting
  • Cutter Gauthier — 0.99 xG/60, 25G 16A, 2 HD goals, 12.9% shooting

SEA

  • Shane Wright — 0.77 xG/60, 8G 10A, 4 HD goals, 10.4% shooting
  • Berkly Catton — 0.68 xG/60, 6G 8A, 5 HD goals, 8.8% shooting

Key Matchups

ANA

  • Key matchup: Neutralize Beckett Sennecke (20G, 1.03 xG/60, 8 HD goals)
  • Watch Cutter Gauthier (25G, 12.9% shooting)

SEA

  • Key matchup: Neutralize Shane Wright (8G, 0.77 xG/60, 4 HD goals)
  • Watch Berkly Catton (6G, 8.8% shooting)

Tactical Notes

  • ANA: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
  • ANA defensive weak link: Mason McTavish
  • SEA: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
  • SEA defensive weak link: Chandler Stephenson

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 52%
52%
ANA
Model favorite
52%
48%
ANA50SEA

ANA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 3.4–3.2 SEA; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG
ANA← edge
edge →SEA
50.4%45.7%
52.2%46.0%
3.402.78
3.353.29
3.232.73
3.513.13
0.9811.011

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.011) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
ANA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
SEA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.011
SEA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALSEA

Shutdown Assignment: Kraken

Key matchup: Neutralize Beckett Sennecke (20G, 1.03 xG/60, 8 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Beckett Sennecke (20G, 1.03 xG/60, 8 HD goals)

TACTICALANA

Shutdown Assignment: Ducks

Key matchup: Neutralize Shane Wright (8G, 0.77 xG/60, 4 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Shane Wright (8G, 0.77 xG/60, 4 HD goals)

WARNINGANA

Exploitable minutes: Mason McTavish

Mason McTavish is on ice for 2.95 xGA/60 and 36 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Mason McTavish's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGSEA

Exploitable minutes: Chandler Stephenson

Chandler Stephenson is on ice for 3.05 xGA/60 and 52 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Chandler Stephenson's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Ducks own the underlying play — 50.4% 5v5 xG vs 45.7%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.2% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Ducks own the underlying play — 50.4% 5v5 xG vs 45.7%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.2% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
ANA
Beckett Sennecke20G 19A
1.03 xG/60 · 8 HD · 13.5% sh
Cutter Gauthier25G 16A
0.99 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.9% sh
SEA
Shane Wright8G 10A
0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
Berkly Catton6G 8A
0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page