Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
Breakdown · ANA at BOS

Ducks hold off the Bruins

The verdict · coin flip

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

ANA 7 · BOS 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:12 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

The Ducks won 7-5 against a Bruins team that controlled the game — and got nothing for it. Boston held 58% of shot attempts (42–30 on goal), but the underlying metrics told a different story: Anaheim's efficiency at even strength was lethal, and the Bruins' goaltending offered no resistance.

The expected-goals split was nearly even at 4.17–4.33 in Anaheim's favor. Where the game tilted was in shot quality: the Ducks recorded 8 high-danger chances to Boston's 5, and more importantly, generated 0.069 expected goals per shot compared to Boston's 0.051. That margin compounds across 30 shots.

The goaltending gap was decisive. J. Korpisalo's 23/29 performance (0.793 SV%) cost the Bruins 1.67 goals against expectation; P. Mrazek's 37/42 (0.881 SV%) was only 0.83 below par. One goalie collapses, one competes — the margin between 7-5 and a much tighter game.

Anaheim's rush game was the difference: 6 goals on 33 chances. Boston managed 2. The Ducks scored 2 goals from low-danger spots despite outchancing the Bruins everywhere else, while Boston's 3 low-danger tallies were a consequence of being pressed all game.

Three Stars

  • M. Granlund (ANA) — 2G, 3A in 20:46
  • N. Nesterenko (ANA) — 4A in 15:17
  • J. Trouba (ANA) — 1G, 1A in 28:34
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 23
ANA
7
BOS
5

Ducks hold off the Bruins

Chances 4.3 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Ducks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
4.33
BOS
4.17
51% of the chances49%

The board read ANA 7, BOS 5. The chances read ANA 4.3, BOS 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
+2.7
goals above expected
ANA4.33 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
BOS4.17 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks scored 2.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:10BOSC. Mittelstadt0–1
  2. P1 08:06ANAD. Helleson1–1
  3. P2 08:49BOSM. Geekie1–2
  4. P2 11:29ANAC. Gauthier2–2
  5. P2 15:24ANAJ. Trouba3–2
  6. P2 17:10BOSM. LohreiPP3–3
  7. P3 02:52ANAM. GranlundPP4–3
+5 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
48 shots
7
Final
104 shots
BOS
56 shots
5
ANA attackBOS attack
ANA BOS Goal
48
shots · 7 in
56
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANABOS
1 / 5
1.63 xG
High danger
1 / 8
1.76 xG
4 / 16
2.06 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.49 xG
2 / 42
0.64 xG
Low
3 / 61
0.92 xG

High-danger looks: ANA 1 of 5, BOS 1 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D-
P. Mrazek
−0.8
ANA · 37/42
F
J. Korpisalo
−1.7
BOS · 23/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks hold off the Bruins

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 12–20
  1. 02:10BOSC. Mittelstadt(P. Zacha, V. Arvidsson)0–1
  2. 08:06ANAD. Helleson(N. Nesterenko, M. Granlund)1–1
2ndshots 6–13
  1. 08:49BOSM. Geekie(D. Pastrnak, C. McAvoy)1–2
  2. 11:29ANAC. Gauthier(J. LaCombe, L. Carlsson)2–2
  3. 15:24ANAJ. Trouba(N. Nesterenko, M. Granlund)3–2
  4. 17:10BOSM. Lohreipower play(H. Jokiharju, M. Eyssimont)3–3
3rdshots 12–9
  1. 02:52ANAM. Granlundpower play(T. Terry, F. Vatrano)4–3
  2. 07:49ANAS. Colangelo(R. Poehling, J. Trouba)5–3
  3. 14:32BOSD. Pastrnakpower play(C. McAvoy, E. Lindholm)5–4
  4. 14:57BOSM. Geekie(N. Zadorov)5–5
  5. 15:27ANAT. Terry(N. Nesterenko, M. Granlund)6–5
  6. 17:52ANAM. Granlundempty net(N. Nesterenko)7–5

score reads ANA–BOS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.33
ANA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.050
ANA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.33Expected goals4.17
ANA 51% of the chance quality
30Shots on goal42
5High-danger chances8
63All attempts (Corsi)82
Adjusted for score: ANA 43% · BOS 57%
Faceoffs · BOS won70%off48%neu57%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA1 / 5 · 1.63 xG
BOS1 / 8 · 1.76 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA4 / 16 · 2.06 xG
BOS1 / 13 · 1.49 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA2 / 42 · 0.64 xG
BOS3 / 61 · 0.92 xG

BOS went 3-for-61 from low danger on 0.92 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
7 G · 4.33 xG · +2.7
BOS
5 G · 4.17 xG · +0.8
012345678

ANA finished +2.7 against expected, BOS +0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
SNAP3/8
WRIST4/26
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/6
DEFLECTED0/1
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/15
BOS
SNAP1/33
WRIST4/4
TIP IN0/11
SLAP0/5
DEFLECTED0/2
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/26
ANA
BOS
Off the rush
6 G on 33
2.99 xG
2 G on 33
2.57 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.36 xG
1 G on 5
0.83 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: ANA went 3-for-8, BOS 1-for-33. ANA scored 6 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
P. Mrazek
ANA · 37/42 · .881
-0.8
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/81.8+0.8
Medium1/131.5+0.5
Low3/610.9-2.1

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

J. Korpisalo
BOS · 23/29 · .793
-1.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.6+0.6
Medium4/162.1-1.9
Low2/420.6-1.4

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

104 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
48 shots
7
Final
104 shots
BOS
56 shots
5
ANA attackBOS attack
ANA BOS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, BOS 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
M. Granlund
#64 · C · ANA
2 G · 3 A · 5 SOG · 20:46 on ice · +4
N. Nesterenko
#13 · C · ANA
0 G · 4 A · 2 SOG · 15:17 on ice · +4
J. Trouba
#65 · D · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 28:34 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 23
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:45 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 calls this one a toss-up: Anaheim projects to 2.7 goals, Boston to 2.6, with the Ducks at 52% win probability. It's as close to a true coin flip as you'll get.

The underlying play belongs to the Ducks. Anaheim owns 52.0% of expected goals and 52.0% of Corsi at 5v5—meaningful territorial control that translates to the slight edge in win probability. This isn't dominant; it's the kind of advantage that a hot goaltender or cold streak erases in one evening.

Both teams are vulnerable to variance. Boston's 1.023 PDO reveals a team running hot; regression is coming. Anaheim's 0.981 PDO is the inverse—the Ducks are running cold and due for positive regression. Over time, those gaps close.

The wrinkle: L. Dostal is on a back-to-back. Whether the Ducks start their backup or ask their starter to carry extra fatigue matters. A tired starter can shrink that xG advantage fast.

Beckett Sennecke (20G, 1.03 xG/60, 8 HD goals) and Cutter Gauthier (25G, 12.9% shooting, 0.99 xG/60) anchor Anaheim's offense. Sennecke's net-front production and Gauthier's volume are the forces Boston must contain. Viktor Arvidsson (18G, 24A, 1.04 xG/60) leads Boston's response—his assist total suggests he's a distribution point as much as a scorer. Tanner Jeannot (6G, 14A, 0.75 xG/60) provides secondary punch.

Defensively, Mason McTavish is Anaheim's weak link. Elias Lindholm carries that burden for Boston. This is the kind of game models struggle with: tight fundamentals, narrow edges, and genuine uncertainty. The Ducks' territorial advantage and Boston's hot PDO cut against each other. The xG rates are close enough that execution matters more than raw advantage. Back-to-back fatigue is the real determinant.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 52%
52%
ANA
Model favorite
52%
48%
ANA50BOS

ANA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.7–2.6 BOS; 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 →BOS
52.0%47.0%
52.0%49.0%
2.802.39
2.592.67
2.092.22
2.321.82
0.9811.023

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.023) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
ANA
6-2-2
+4 GD · 1d rest
BOS
5-5-0
+3 GD · 2d rest
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.023
BOS 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 47.0%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • 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 47.0%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • L. Dostal is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
back-to-back.929 last start
Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 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.

BOS
Expected in goal
J. Swayman
2 days rest.826 last start
Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 GSAx this season

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
BOS
Viktor Arvidsson18G 24A
1.04 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
Tanner Jeannot6G 14A
0.75 xG/60 · 2 HD · 8.3% sh
Keep going

Where to next