Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
← Tue, Oct 28 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at FLA

Ducks steal one from the Panthers against the run of play

Final / OTTue, Oct 28
ANAAnaheim Ducks3FLAFlorida Panthers2
The verdict · stolen

The Ducks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.16–6.74 and won anyway.

ANA 3 · FLA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:05 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 Panthers generated 68% of expected goals and lost in a shootout. Anaheim's 3-2 victory was a heist.

Shot quality separated the teams completely. Florida held 66% of shot attempts and built 6.74 expected goals to Anaheim's 3.16—a 68-32 split forecasting a rout that never arrived. High-danger chances went 14 to 6 in Florida's favor. Everything suggested a Panthers win.

Instead, execution betrayed them. The Panthers went 0 for 14 on high-danger chances—a miss rate that won't repeat. They generated 10 rebound opportunities and converted zero. Anaheim, similarly cursed with 0 for 6 on high-danger looks, survived because Lukas Dostal was exceptional in the spots that mattered: 31 of 33 saves, +4.74 goals against expected. That margin is the entire game.

The Panthers' scoring chances were structurally superior. Their high-danger attempts came at 0.091 xG per shot, nearly double Anaheim's 0.058—better looks, consistently. Sergei Tarasov gave Florida nothing to blame, stopping 15 of 17, yet Dostal was the decisive player.

Mason McTavish's shootout snap from the doorstep ended it. A player invisible in regulation suddenly, improbably, won the game from the stripe.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Oct 28
ANA
3
FLA
2

Ducks steal one from the Panthers against the run of play

Chances 3.2 – 6.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.16
FLA
6.74
32% of the chances68%

The board read ANA 3, FLA 2. The chances read ANA 3.2, FLA 6.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
−0.2
goals above expected
ANA3.16 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA6.74 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 4.7 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. P2 09:59ANAL. CarlssonSH1–0
  2. P2 12:27ANAC. GauthierPP2–0
  3. P3 11:12FLAA. Lundell2–1
  4. P3 16:54FLAS. ReinhartPP2–2
  5. SO 00:00ANAT. TerryPP2–2
  6. SO 00:00FLAA. LundellPP2–2
  7. SO 00:00ANAM. McTavishPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
34 shots
4
Final
93 shots
FLA
59 shots
3
ANA attackFLA attack
ANA FLA Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

34
shots · 4 in
59
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANAFLA
0 / 6
1.52 xG
High danger
0 / 14
3.80 xG
1 / 10
1.14 xG
Medium
1 / 20
2.29 xG
1 / 38
0.49 xG
Low
1 / 40
0.65 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 14 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
L. Dostal
+4.7
ANA · 31/33
B+
D. Tarasov
+1.2
FLA · 15/17
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks steal one from the Panthers against the run of play

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 6–12no goals
    2ndshots 7–10
    1. 09:59ANAL. Carlssonshorthanded(T. Terry, D. Helleson)1–0
    2. 12:27ANAC. Gauthierpower play(J. LaCombe, L. Carlsson)2–0
    3rdshots 3–6
    1. 11:12FLAA. Lundell(M. Samoskevich, E. Luostarinen)2–1
    2. 16:54FLAS. Reinhartpower play(S. Jones, C. Verhaeghe)2–2
    OTshots 1–5no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00ANAT. Terrypower play2–2
      2. 00:00FLAA. Lundellpower play2–2
      3. 00:00ANAM. McTavishpower play2–2

      score reads ANA–FLA

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      3.16
      ANA chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.2
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.010
      ANA puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      42.2%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.16Expected goals6.74
      FLA 68% of the chance quality
      17Shots on goal33
      6High-danger chances14
      54All attempts (Corsi)74
      Adjusted for score: ANA 40% · FLA 60%
      Faceoffs · FLA won71%off43%neu67%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      ANA0 / 6 · 1.52 xG
      FLA0 / 14 · 3.80 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      ANA1 / 10 · 1.14 xG
      FLA1 / 20 · 2.29 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      ANA1 / 38 · 0.49 xG
      FLA1 / 40 · 0.65 xG

      FLA went 0-for-14 from high danger on 3.80 expected goals — 3.8 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      ANA
      3 G · 3.16 xG · -0.2
      FLA
      2 G · 6.74 xG · -4.7
      012345678

      ANA finished -0.2 against expected, FLA -4.7.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      ANA
      SNAP2/18
      BACKHAND0/4
      SLAP0/4
      WRIST0/4
      TIP IN0/0
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      DEFLECTED0/1
      BETWEEN LEGS0/0
      OTHER0/23
      FLA
      SNAP0/38
      BACKHAND0/5
      SLAP0/4
      WRIST1/2
      TIP IN1/4
      WRAP AROUND0/2
      DEFLECTED0/0
      BETWEEN LEGS0/1
      OTHER0/18
      ANA
      FLA
      Off the rush
      1 G on 19
      2.00 xG
      2 G on 35
      3.98 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 3
      0.57 xG
      0 G on 10
      2.44 xG

      Snap shots carried the volume: ANA went 2-for-18, FLA 0-for-38. FLA scored 2 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 · 31/33 · .939
      +4.7
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/143.8+3.8
      Medium1/202.3+1.3
      Low1/400.7-0.3

      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

      D. Tarasov
      FLA · 15/17 · .882
      +1.2
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/61.5+1.5
      Medium1/101.1+0.1
      Low1/380.5-0.5

      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

      93 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      ANA
      34 shots
      4
      Final
      93 shots
      FLA
      59 shots
      3
      ANA attackFLA attack
      ANA FLA Goal

      Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

      Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, FLA 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
      L. Carlsson
      #91 · C · ANA
      1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:22 on ice
      J. LaCombe
      #2 · D · ANA
      0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 29:00 on ice · -1
      S. Jones
      #3 · D · FLA
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 28:08 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Tue, Oct 28
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:28 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 2.7 goals for Anaheim and 2.7 for Florida, with the Ducks at exactly 50% win probability. This is the definition of a pick'em — the math believes either team earns two points tonight.

      That flatness exists because Anaheim controls play and Florida runs hotter. The Ducks generate 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 versus the Panthers' 49.0%, a genuine edge in shot quality. They match Florida at 52.0% Corsi, meaning puck possession is nearly even despite the expected-goals gap. But Anaheim's 0.981 PDO is well below baseline, the signature of a team running cold and due for positive regression. Florida's 0.989 PDO is closer to sustainable rates, which is the only reason a team being outshot in quality still grades as a statistical coin flip.

      The result: Anaheim has the better underlying game. Florida has gotten luckier. The margin is tight enough that either outcome makes mathematical sense.

      Defensively, Anaheim's Mason McTavish is the vulnerable link; Florida's is Brad Marchand, whose transition turnovers generate chances. Both teams sit at 0% on high-danger goals and 0% on rebounds, meaning their goalies are doing the real defending — and Florida's has received the luckier bounces.

      Players to Watch

      ANA

      • Beckett Sennecke — 1.03 xG/60, 20G 19A, 8 HD goals, 13.5% shooting
      • Cutter Gauthier — 0.99 xG/60, 25G 16A, 2 HD goals, 12.9% shooting

      FLA

      • Sam Bennett — 0.97 xG/60, 18G 19A, 6 HD goals, 13.1% shooting
      • Brad Marchand — 0.93 xG/60, 17G 9A, 3 HD goals, 19.5% shooting
      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      ANA 50%
      50%
      ANA
      Model favorite
      50%
      50%
      ANA50FLA

      ANA by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.7–2.7 FLA; 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 →FLA
      52.0%49.0%
      52.0%52.0%
      2.802.48
      2.592.56
      2.091.98
      2.322.21
      0.9810.989

      The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.989) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      ANA
      5-3-2
      +2 GD · 3d rest
      FLA
      5-5-0
      -3 GD · 3d rest
      0.981
      ANA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.989
      FLA 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.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      ANA
      Expected in goal
      L. Dostal
      3 days rest.879 last start
      Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      FLA
      Expected in goal
      S. Bobrovsky
      3 days rest1.000 last start
      Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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
      FLA
      Sam Bennett18G 19A
      0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
      Brad Marchand17G 9A
      0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page