Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · PIT at ANA

Ducks hold off the Penguins

FinalTue, Oct 14

PITPittsburgh Penguins3 ANAAnaheim Ducks4

The verdict · earned

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

PIT 3 · ANA 4

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:45 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 won 4-3, but the margin was narrow despite commanding the chances. The Ducks overperformed their expected goals by 0.74 — they scored more than the quality of their shot creation warranted — while Pittsburgh's goaltending missed by that same margin in the opposite direction.

The underlying play was a genuine coin flip, just not in obvious ways. Shot attempts favored Pittsburgh (47% for Anaheim), but expected goals swung sharply the other way: 3.26–2.79, a 54–46 split in Anaheim's favor. This separation of volume and quality is where teams live or die. The Ducks generated better chances despite being outworked on attempts.

Anaheim's finishing told the story. Two goals came from low-danger spots — the kind that demand goaltender execution. L. Dostal (ANA) supplied it, stopping 22 of 25 for 0.880, while T. Jarry (PIT) managed 18 of 22 at 0.818, underperforming expectation by 0.74 goals. The high-danger chances split evenly at three apiece, but conversion made the difference.

Both teams were lethal in transition. Anaheim scored three goals on 29 rush chances; Pittsburgh matched them at three on 27. But Anaheim's power play was the deciding factor: two goals on 20 shots, a 1.67 expected-goal rate that materialized. That advantage sealed the result.

In the third period at 18:33, C. Kreider converted from the slot. S. Crosby's two assists and R. Shea's two helpers weren't enough.

Three Stars

#20 C. Kreider — 2G, 1A in 15:13
#5 R. Shea — 2A in 20:13
#87 S. Crosby — 2A in 17:11

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 14

PIT

ANA

Ducks hold off the Penguins

Chances 2.8 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

PIT

2.79

ANA

3.26

46% of the chances54%

The board read PIT 3, ANA 4. The chances read PIT 2.8, ANA 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

ANA

+0.7

goals above expected

ANA3.26 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

PIT2.79 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 01:03PITJ. Brazeau1–0
P1 07:01PITR. Rakell2–0
P1 09:42ANAC. KreiderPP2–1
P1 19:25ANAC. Gauthier2–2
P2 09:48ANAD. Helleson2–3
P2 17:01PITA. Mantha3–3
P3 18:33ANAC. KreiderPP3–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

PIT

36 shots

Final

79 shots

ANA

43 shots

PIT ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

PITANA

0 / 3

0.68 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.68 xG

3 / 15

1.57 xG

Medium

2 / 19

2.01 xG

0 / 35

0.54 xG

Low

2 / 47

0.57 xG

The Penguins went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

L. Dostal

−0.2

ANA · 22/25

T. Jarry

−0.7

PIT · 18/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks hold off the Penguins

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 15–6

01:03PITJ. Brazeau(R. Shea, E. Malkin)1–0
07:01PITR. Rakell(R. Shea, S. Crosby)2–0
09:42ANAC. Kreiderpower play(L. Carlsson, M. Granlund)2–1
19:25ANAC. Gauthier(P. Mintyukov, B. Sennecke)2–2

2ndshots 7–10

09:48ANAD. Helleson(C. Kreider)2–3
17:01PITA. Mantha(S. Crosby, B. Rust)3–3

3rdshots 3–6

18:33ANAC. Kreiderpower play(T. Terry, L. Carlsson)3–4

score reads PIT–ANA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.26

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.001

ANA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

56.6%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.79Expected goals3.26

ANA 54% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal22

3High-danger chances3

53All attempts (Corsi)69

Adjusted for score: PIT 42% · ANA 58%

Faceoffs · ANA won47%off64%neu48%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

PIT0 / 3 · 0.68 xG

ANA0 / 3 · 0.68 xG

Medium dangermid-range

PIT3 / 15 · 1.57 xG

ANA2 / 19 · 2.01 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

PIT0 / 35 · 0.54 xG

ANA2 / 47 · 0.57 xG

ANA went 2-for-47 from low danger on 0.57 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

PIT

3 G · 2.79 xG · +0.2

ANA

4 G · 3.26 xG · +0.7

012345

PIT finished +0.2 against expected, ANA +0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

PIT

WRIST1/13

SNAP0/6

TIP IN2/9

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/5

DEFLECTED0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/17

ANA

WRIST0/13

SNAP1/11

TIP IN1/4

SLAP2/9

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/2

BAT0/1

OTHER0/26

PIT

ANA

Off the rush

3 G on 27

2.19 xG

3 G on 29

2.20 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.24 xG

0 G on 2

0.46 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: PIT went 1-for-13, ANA 0-for-13. PIT 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

T. Jarry

PIT · 18/22 · .818

-0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium2/192.0+0.0

Low2/470.6-1.4

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

L. Dostal

ANA · 22/25 · .880

-0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium3/151.6-1.4

Low0/350.5+0.5

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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

PIT

36 shots

Final

79 shots

ANA

43 shots

PIT ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, ANA 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

C. Kreider

#20 · L · —

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 15:13 on ice · -2

R. Shea

#5 · D · —

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:13 on ice · +2

S. Crosby

#87 · C · —

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 17:11 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 14

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:39 AMEdited 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

The model projects a 3.3-3.5 Pittsburgh victory, putting Anaheim at 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as the numbers allow.

The season 5v5 picture explains the tightness: Pittsburgh and Anaheim are nearly identical in shot quality (xG% 50.8% vs 50.4%), though the Ducks have edged the possession battle at 52.2% Corsi to the Penguins' 50.2%. What separates them is luck. Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO suggests things are clicking; Anaheim's 0.981 indicates the Ducks are running cold relative to what their underlying play deserves, a gap that historically corrects toward the mean.

Anaheim's offense runs through Beckett Sennecke, who carries 20 goals and 19 assists paired with 1.03 xG/60 — that's 8 high-danger scoring chances materializing at an elite rate. Cutter Gauthier is tracking at 25 goals and 16 assists with equivalent underlying production (0.99 xG/60, 2 HD goals, 12.9% shooting). Pittsburgh concentrates its firepower differently: Filip Hallander drives the expected-goals engine at 1.28 xG/60, the team's highest, yet has produced only 3 assists against 0 goals — a mismatch between volume and results that points to regression or inefficiency. Rickard Rakell is the actual scorer, with 13 goals and 13 assists on a 12.1% shooting clip, 3 of those conversions in high-danger areas. If Hallander's volume doesn't translate and Rakell regresses toward his 1.01 xG/60 baseline, Pittsburgh's scoring drops.

Defensively, both clubs harbor a specific risk. Caleb Jones (Pittsburgh) and Mason McTavish (Anaheim) are liabilities in their respective blue lines — matchup choices matter when either plays against top competition. That dynamic will shape the night.

The model's near-even projection reflects genuine uncertainty. Anaheim's PDO gives the Ducks mean-reversion upside, while Pittsburgh's efficiency edge — Rakell's shooting, Hallander's volume — is real but not overwhelming. Call this one unpredictable.

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 52%

52%

ANA

Model favorite

48%

52%

PIT50ANA

ANA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 3.3–3.5 ANA; 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

PIT← edge

edge →ANA

50.8%50.4%

50.2%52.2%

3.313.40

3.203.35

3.543.23

3.153.51

1.0120.981

PIT holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 0.981) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

PIT

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

ANA

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.012

PIT PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.981

ANA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

STRENGTHPIT

Filip Hallander drives the Penguins offense

Filip Hallander: 0G 3A, 1.28 xG/60.

TACTICALANA

Shutdown Assignment: Ducks

Key matchup: Neutralize Filip Hallander (0G, 1.28 xG/60, 0 HD goals)

TACTICALPIT

Shutdown Assignment: Penguins

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

WARNINGPIT

Exploitable minutes: Caleb Jones

Caleb Jones is on ice for 3.26 xGA/60 and 4 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Caleb Jones's shifts with the top line.

Regression watch

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

Things to watch

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

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

PIT

Filip Hallander0G 3A

1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh

Rickard Rakell13G 13A

1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page