Ducks run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

San Jose's 3.14-goal overperformance on expected goals kept this competitive; Anaheim's underlying dominance won it.

SJS generated only 34% of expected goals (2.86 to 5.55) and managed 23 shot attempts to Anaheim's 44. High-danger chances favored ANA 12–6. Yet San Jose scored six. They outperformed their xG by 3.14, meaning they converted at a rate that doesn't match their opportunities—elite finishers or fortunate bounces, but a gap that reveals the scoreboard understates how thoroughly Anaheim controlled play.

Anaheim built dominance through volume. They finished two goals ahead of their own 5.55 xG, but their shot-attempt and expected-goal advantage was so large that even outperforming their model only shrank the margin. P. Mrazek gave up 3.14 more goals than expected—a stark underperformance that exposed Anaheim's true goaltending deficit despite the win.

Y. Askarov was nearly invincible on high-danger chances, stopping 92% of 12 shots from close range. San Jose was clinical on their limited HD attempts: 3 of 6 converted (50%). They added 5 goals off the rush on 23 chances and created just 3 rebound opportunities, scoring 1. Anaheim generated 10 rebound opportunities and scored 3 goals from rebounds—a decisive edge in secondary chances.

Leo Carlsson's wrist shot from the high slot at 0:46 in overtime closed it. By then, Anaheim's dominance across shot suppression, expected goals, and high-danger chances had become inevitable.