Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
← Sun, Oct 19 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at CHI

S. Knight stands tall as the Blackhawks edge the Ducks

Final / OTSun, Oct 19
ANAAnaheim Ducks1CHIChicago Blackhawks2
The verdict · coin flip

The Blackhawks won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

ANA 1 · CHI 2
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:13 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

S. Knight stole this one. Chicago won 2–1 in overtime, but the underlying numbers say it shouldn't have. ANA's expected goals (3.89) exceeded CHI's (3.65), yet CHI left with the win. Both teams then vanished when it mattered most—CHI underperformed xG by 1.65 goals, ANA by 2.89. That gap doesn't close without elite goaltending.

Knight was exactly that. The CHI netminder faced 39 shots and allowed 1, posting a 0.974 save percentage while beating expected saves by 2.89 goals. That's not variance; that's excellence. L. Dostal (ANA) posted a 0.933 SV% and overperformed expected by 1.65, a solid outing rendered irrelevant by the team around him.

The Ducks had the chances. ANA generated 6 high-danger chances to CHI's 5, then went 0-for-5 on the ones closest to goal. Seven rebound opportunities—evidence of effective net crashing—went unfinished. That offensive drought in front of a goalie in rhythm decides games.

CHI's attack was no sharper. Holding just 44% of shot attempts (30 to ANA's 39), the Blackhawks wasted nearly two expected goals. They entered overtime relying entirely on Knight's wall.

Ryan Donato ended it. His wrist shot from the doorstep at 02:58 of OT was the only finishing touch either offense managed. Donato earned first star with 1G and 1A in 14:06. J. LaCombe (ANA) and C. Bedard (CHI) completed the three stars with one assist each.

  • #8 R. Donato (CHI) — 1G, 1A in 14:06
  • #2 J. LaCombe (ANA) — 1A in 25:54
  • #98 C. Bedard (CHI) — 1A in 24:37
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 19
ANA
1
CHI
2

S. Knight stands tall as the Blackhawks edge the Ducks

Chances 3.9 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Blackhawks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.89
CHI
3.65
52% of the chances48%

The board read ANA 1, CHI 2. The chances read ANA 3.9, CHI 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
−1.6
goals above expected
CHI3.65 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.89 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks left 2.9 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. P3 09:43CHIF. Nazar0–1
  2. P3 19:24ANAM. McTavishPP1–1
  3. OT 02:58CHIR. Donato1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
55 shots
1
Final
103 shots
CHI
48 shots
2
ANA attackCHI attack
ANA CHI Goal
55
shots · 1 in
48
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANACHI
0 / 5
1.11 xG
High danger
2 / 6
1.28 xG
1 / 19
2.05 xG
Medium
0 / 17
1.75 xG
0 / 44
0.73 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.62 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Knight
+2.9
CHI · 38/39
A
L. Dostal
+1.6
ANA · 28/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

S. Knight stands tall as the Blackhawks edge 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 16–10no goals
    2ndshots 7–6no goals
      3rdshots 13–9
      1. 09:43CHIF. Nazar(W. Kaiser, R. Donato)0–1
      2. 19:24ANAM. McTavishpower play(T. Terry, J. LaCombe)1–1
      OTshots 3–5
      1. 02:58CHIR. Donato(C. Bedard, S. Rinzel)1–2

      score reads ANA–CHI

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      3.65
      CHI chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −1.6
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.019
      CHI puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      46.9%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.89Expected goals3.65
      ANA 52% of the chance quality
      39Shots on goal30
      5High-danger chances6
      68All attempts (Corsi)60
      Adjusted for score: ANA 54% · CHI 46%
      Faceoffs · CHI won44%off58%neu67%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      ANA0 / 5 · 1.11 xG
      CHI2 / 6 · 1.28 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      ANA1 / 19 · 2.05 xG
      CHI0 / 17 · 1.75 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      ANA0 / 44 · 0.73 xG
      CHI0 / 37 · 0.62 xG

      CHI went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 1.75 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      ANA
      1 G · 3.89 xG · -2.9
      CHI
      2 G · 3.65 xG · -1.6
      012345

      ANA finished -2.9 against expected, CHI -1.6.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      ANA
      WRIST1/43
      TIP IN0/2
      SLAP0/3
      SNAP0/3
      DEFLECTED0/3
      BAT0/1
      BACKHAND0/0
      OTHER0/13
      CHI
      WRIST2/34
      TIP IN0/5
      SLAP0/4
      SNAP0/3
      DEFLECTED0/1
      BAT0/0
      BACKHAND0/1
      OTHER0/12
      ANA
      CHI
      Off the rush
      1 G on 34
      2.39 xG
      0 G on 33
      2.68 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 7
      1.26 xG
      1 G on 2
      0.25 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 1-for-43, CHI 2-for-34.

      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 · 28/30 · .933
      +1.6
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger2/61.3-0.7
      Medium0/171.8+1.8
      Low0/370.6+0.6

      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

      S. Knight
      CHI · 38/39 · .974
      +2.9
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/51.1+1.1
      Medium1/192.0+1.1
      Low0/440.7+0.7

      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

      103 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      ANA
      55 shots
      1
      Final
      103 shots
      CHI
      48 shots
      2
      ANA attackCHI attack
      ANA CHI Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, CHI 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
      R. Donato
      #8 · C · CHI
      1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 14:06 on ice · +2
      J. LaCombe
      #2 · D · ANA
      0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 25:54 on ice
      C. Bedard
      #98 · C · CHI
      0 G · 1 A · 9 SOG · 24:37 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sun, Oct 19
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJun 16, 3:11 PMEdited 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 favors Anaheim, projecting a 2.9–2.5 Ducks win with Chicago at 44% win probability. That lean makes sense: Anaheim is riding a 6-3-1 stretch and has seized control of the underlying game.

      The Ducks dominate the shot metrics. They post 52.0% expected goals at 5v5 against Chicago's 42.0%, and own 52.0% of shot attempts (Corsi) to the Blackhawks' 46.0%. That territorial advantage translates to consistent offensive opportunity—but Anaheim's PDO of 0.981 reveals a team running cold on finishing. Regression is due.

      Chicago's 0.996 PDO tells the inverse story: the Blackhawks have converted slightly above their underlying play, a position that historically collapses.

      Anaheim's offensive load falls on Beckett Sennecke and Cutter Gauthier. Sennecke generates 1.03 expected goals per 60 minutes with 20 goals and 19 assists, including 8 high-danger chances at a 13.5% shooting clip. Gauthier matches that intensity—0.99 xG/60, 25 goals, 16 assists—though only 2 have come in high-danger situations, suggesting his efficiency may not hold.

      For Chicago, Tyler Bertuzzi (0.85 xG/60, 20 goals, 15 assists) and Connor Bedard (0.82 xG/60, 17 goals, 27 assists) manage the offensive burden. Bertuzzi has converted 7 high-danger chances at an 18.0% shooting percentage; Bedard's 27 assists mask a goal-scoring pace (11.8% shooting) that lags his volume.

      Watch S. Knight on the back-to-back—Chicago may deploy a backup or a tired starter. Anaheim should strike early rather than wait for PDO luck to arrive.

      Three Stars

      • Cutter Gauthier's 25 goals lead all forwards in this matchup
      • Beckett Sennecke's 1.03 xG/60 is the game's highest volume creator
      • S. Knight's back-to-back status determines Chicago's goaltending approach
      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      ANA 56%
      56%
      ANA
      Model favorite
      56%
      44%
      ANA50CHI

      ANA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score ANA 2.9–2.5 CHI; 18% 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 →CHI
      52.0%42.0%
      52.0%46.0%
      2.802.17
      2.592.94
      2.091.84
      2.322.41
      0.9810.996

      ANA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.996) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      ANA
      6-3-1
      +4 GD · 2d rest
      CHI
      3-5-2
      -1 GD · 1d rest
      0.981
      ANA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.996
      CHI PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • ANA owns the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
      • ANA drives Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • ANA PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • ANA owns the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
      • ANA drives Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • S. Knight is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • ANA is the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
      • ANA PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      ANA
      Expected in goal
      L. Dostal
      2 days rest.875 last start
      Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      CHI
      Expected in goal
      S. Knight
      back-to-back.938 last start
      Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season
      Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

      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
      CHI
      Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
      0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
      Connor Bedard17G 27A
      0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page