Backcheck
Recap · ANA at FLA

Ducks steal one from the Panthers against the run of play

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

By the ModelJul 12, 1:05 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
ANA
Anaheim Ducks
3
Home
FLA
Florida Panthers
2
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.16Expected goals6.74
68% share for the better side
17Shot attempts (SOG)33
6High-danger chances14
54Corsi (all attempts)74
Score-adjusted: 40% / 60%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
L. DostalANA
+4.7
D. TarasovFLA
+1.2

ANA finished -0.2 against expected, FLA -4.7 — L. Dostal (ANA) saved 4.7 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
L. Carlsson
#91 · C · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:22 TOI
J. LaCombe
#2 · D · ANA
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 29:00 TOI · -1
S. Jones
#3 · D · FLA
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 28:08 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • ANA stole this one. FLA owned 68% of the xG and lost.
  • L. Dostal (ANA) stopped 4.7 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 20 high-danger chances combined (FLA 14, ANA 6).
  • FLA generated far more dangerous chances — 0.091 xG/shot vs 0.058. Quality over quantity.
  • FLA couldn't convert — 0/14 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • ANA couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • FLA was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 35 rush chances.
  • FLA created 10 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • ANA created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • FLA underperformed xG by 4.7 — wasted quality chances.
  • L. Dostal (ANA) saved 4.7 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · ANA at FLA · 7:00 PM ET

Ducks at Panthers: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 1:28 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

50%
ANA
Model favorite
50%
50%
ANA50FLA

ANA by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.72.7 FLA; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

ANA← edge
edge →FLA
52.0%5v5 xG%49.0%
52.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.80xGF / 602.48
2.59xGA / 602.56
2.09Goals for / gm1.98
2.32Goals against / gm2.21
0.981PDO — luck, not skill0.989

The season numbers split 33 — no clear process edge — and PDO (0.981 vs 0.989) says FLA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters