Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
← Tue, Oct 21 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at NSH

Ducks run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Oct 21
ANAAnaheim Ducks5NSHNashville Predators2
The verdict · earned

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

ANA 5 · NSH 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:36 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's dominance extended beyond the 5-2 scoreline. The Ducks controlled 65% of 5v5 expected goals (4.80–2.55) and massively outshot Nashville on high-danger chances, 8–1. Nashville held 47% of shot attempts, but the chances weren't there to threaten.

The gap widened in quality per attempt. Anaheim generated 0.074 expected goals per shot; Nashville managed 0.046. Lower-percentage chances against a hot goalie are a losing bet.

L. Dostal (ANA) stopped 26 of 28, posting a 0.929 save percentage that beat expectation by 0.55. J. Saros (NSH) faced harder looks: 27 of 32 stopped, 0.844 save percentage. Dostal's edge mattered.

Nashville's one consistent threat came off the rush — two goals on 21 chances. Anaheim answered with three goals on 30 rush attempts. Both teams executed in transition, but Anaheim had more of it.

The rebound battle sealed it. Nashville crashed the net for six rebound opportunities and converted zero. Anaheim had seven and converted two. When possession favors you this heavily at 5v5, second chances become inevitable.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 21
ANA
5
NSH
2

Ducks run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.8 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
4.80
NSH
2.55
65% of the chances35%

The board read ANA 5, NSH 2. The chances read ANA 4.8, NSH 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
+0.2
goals above expected
ANA4.80 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH2.55 expected · 2 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
  1. P1 08:52ANAR. Johnston1–0
  2. P1 14:29NSHT. Jost1–1
  3. P2 04:23ANAL. Carlsson2–1
  4. P2 06:39NSHF. Forsberg2–2
  5. P2 15:07ANAC. Gauthier3–2
  6. P2 16:59ANAB. Sennecke4–2
  7. P3 11:40ANAT. Terry5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
51 shots
5
Final
93 shots
NSH
42 shots
2
ANA attackNSH attack
ANA NSH Goal
51
shots · 5 in
42
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANANSH
2 / 8
2.10 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.23 xG
3 / 17
2.07 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.56 xG
0 / 40
0.63 xG
Low
1 / 40
0.77 xG

The Ducks buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
L. Dostal
+0.6
ANA · 26/28
C
J. Saros
−0.2
NSH · 27/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 13–11
  1. 08:52ANAR. Johnston(R. Gudas, P. Mintyukov)1–0
  2. 14:29NSHT. Jost(S. Stastney, J. Barron)1–1
2ndshots 12–15
  1. 04:23ANAL. Carlsson(J. Trouba, C. Gauthier)2–1
  2. 06:39NSHF. Forsberg(R. Josi, R. O'Reilly)2–2
  3. 15:07ANAC. Gauthier(J. Trouba)3–2
  4. 16:59ANAB. Sennecke(M. McTavish, R. Johnston)4–2
3rdshots 7–2
  1. 11:40ANAT. Terry(R. Poehling, R. Johnston)5–2

score reads ANA–NSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.80
ANA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.041
ANA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.80Expected goals2.55
ANA 65% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal28
8High-danger chances1
65All attempts (Corsi)55
Adjusted for score: ANA 52% · NSH 49%
Faceoffs · NSH won44%off57%neu38%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA2 / 8 · 2.10 xG
NSH0 / 1 · 0.23 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA3 / 17 · 2.07 xG
NSH1 / 14 · 1.56 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 40 · 0.63 xG
NSH1 / 40 · 0.77 xG

ANA went 3-for-17 from medium danger on 2.07 expected goals — 0.9 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
5 G · 4.80 xG · +0.2
NSH
2 G · 2.55 xG · -0.6
0123456

ANA finished +0.2 against expected, NSH -0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST3/29
SNAP2/6
SLAP0/8
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/14
NSH
WRIST0/17
SNAP0/10
SLAP0/7
TIP IN2/5
BACKHAND0/3
OTHER0/13
ANA
NSH
Off the rush
3 G on 30
3.52 xG
2 G on 21
1.55 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 7
0.96 xG
0 G on 6
0.67 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 3-for-29, NSH 0-for-17. ANA 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 · 26/28 · .929
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium1/141.6+0.6
Low1/400.8-0.2

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. Saros
NSH · 27/32 · .844
-0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.1+0.1
Medium3/172.1-0.9
Low0/400.6+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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
51 shots
5
Final
93 shots
NSH
42 shots
2
ANA attackNSH attack
ANA NSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, NSH 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. Johnston
#44 · L · ANA
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 08:53 on ice · +3
J. Trouba
#65 · D · ANA
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:55 on ice · +4
C. Gauthier
#61 · L · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:46 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 21
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:35 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 projects a 2.7-2.7 game with the Ducks at 50% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Anaheim owns the underlying play. The Ducks post 52.0% 5v5 xG and 52.0% Corsi to Nashville's 49.0% and 50.0%, controlling both shot quality and volume. On paper, this is an Anaheim game.

Regression narrows the edge. The Ducks' 0.981 PDO sits well below Nashville's 0.992—Anaheim is running cold and due for positive regression, which will shrink what appears to be a clean advantage.

Beckett Sennecke delivers Anaheim's offense at 1.03 xG per 60 with 20 goals, 19 assists, and eight high-danger finishes on a 13.5% shooting rate that appears sustainable. Cutter Gauthier runs 0.99 xG per 60 and has posted 25 goals and 16 assists on a 12.9% clip, though he's drawn only 2 high-danger goals—his efficiency looks genuine. Nashville counters with Filip Forsberg (23 goals, 17 assists, 0.80 xG/60, 13.6% shooting) and Zachary L'Heureux, who produces 0.85 xG per 60 but has registered only 4 goals on a 16.0% shooting rate that leaves room for regression.

Defensively, Mason McTavish is Anaheim's weak link; Jonathan Marchessault represents a similar vulnerability for Nashville. Both teams generated zero high-danger and zero rebound goals—no edge in the margins.

The model has it right. The Ducks own cleaner possession, but their luck deficit narrows the gap closer to parity.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 50%
50%
ANA
Model favorite
50%
50%
ANA50NSH

ANA by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.7–2.7 NSH; 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 →NSH
52.0%49.0%
52.0%50.0%
2.802.48
2.592.58
2.091.84
2.322.21
0.9810.992

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.992) says NSH 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
NSH
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.992
NSH PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Ducks own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Ducks own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • 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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page