Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · DET at ANA

Ducks pull away from the Red Wings

FinalFri, Oct 31

The verdict · coin flip

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

DET 2 · ANA 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:23 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 won 5-2, but Detroit nearly won on paper. Expected goals favored the Red Wings 4.39 to 4.24—a structure that should've protected them. The Ducks escaped a victory they didn't fully earn.

L. Dostal stole the game. The Ducks' goaltender stopped 2.4 goals above expected, converting Anaheim's defensive liability into saves. Detroit underperformed their 4.39 xG by 2.39 goals, a collapse especially damaging because they created eight high-danger chances to Anaheim's three. When a team generates the better looks and still loses by three, goaltending usually takes the blame—and J. Gibson's 0.871 save percentage (27 of 31) should shoulder it.

Anaheim's efficiency off the rush masked their underlying disadvantage: three goals on 29 chances versus Detroit's two on identical volume. Detroit's structural advantage evaporated in the rebound zone, where they generated six opportunities but converted zero—a wasteful pattern that defined their night.

L. Carlsson led Anaheim with one goal and three assists in 15:44. T. Terry contributed two goals and an assist across 17:17. C. Gauthier added two assists in 18:21. Detroit's skaters created; Anaheim's finished.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 31

DET

ANA

Ducks pull away from the Red Wings

Chances 4.4 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Ducks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

DET

4.39

ANA

4.24

51% of the chances49%

The board read DET 2, ANA 5. The chances read DET 4.4, ANA 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

ANA

+0.8

goals above expected

ANA4.24 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

DET4.39 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Red Wings left 2.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 04:53ANAT. TerrySH0–1
P1 08:19DETL. Raymond1–1
P1 12:24ANAL. Carlsson1–2
P2 06:35ANAM. McTavish1–3
P2 15:25DETA. DeBrincatPP2–3
P3 00:55ANAC. KreiderPP2–4
P3 17:28ANAT. TerryEN2–5

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

DET

49 shots

Final

94 shots

ANA

45 shots

DET ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DETANA

1 / 8

1.91 xG

High danger

1 / 3

1.18 xG

1 / 20

1.89 xG

Medium

3 / 22

2.48 xG

0 / 34

0.59 xG

Low

1 / 32

0.57 xG

High-danger looks: DET 1 of 8, ANA 1 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

L. Dostal

+2.4

ANA · 28/30

J. Gibson

+0.2

DET · 27/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks pull away from the Red Wings

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 6–12

04:53ANAT. Terryshorthanded(D. Helleson, L. Carlsson)0–1
08:19DETL. Raymond(D. Larkin, A. DeBrincat)1–1
12:24ANAL. Carlsson(T. Terry, J. Trouba)1–2

2ndshots 15–9

06:35ANAM. McTavish(O. Zellweger, C. Gauthier)1–3
15:25DETA. DeBrincatpower play(L. Raymond, M. Seider)2–3

3rdshots 9–11

00:55ANAC. Kreiderpower play(C. Gauthier, L. Carlsson)2–4
17:28ANAT. Terryempty net(L. Carlsson)2–5

score reads DET–ANA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.24

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.8

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.056

ANA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

47.9%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.39Expected goals4.24

DET 51% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal32

8High-danger chances3

62All attempts (Corsi)57

Adjusted for score: DET 57% · ANA 43%

Faceoffs · ANA won39%off31%neu36%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DET1 / 8 · 1.91 xG

ANA1 / 3 · 1.18 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DET1 / 20 · 1.89 xG

ANA3 / 22 · 2.48 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DET0 / 34 · 0.59 xG

ANA1 / 32 · 0.57 xG

DET went 1-for-8 from high danger on 1.91 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DET

2 G · 4.39 xG · -2.4

ANA

5 G · 4.24 xG · +0.8

0123456

DET finished -2.4 against expected, ANA +0.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DET

WRIST2/23

SNAP0/15

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN0/5

SLAP0/3

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/13

ANA

WRIST4/17

SNAP0/8

BACKHAND1/8

TIP IN0/5

SLAP0/6

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/12

DET

ANA

Off the rush

2 G on 29

2.68 xG

3 G on 29

2.68 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

0.77 xG

1 G on 4

0.52 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: DET went 2-for-23, ANA 4-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

J. Gibson

DET · 27/31 · .871

+0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/31.2+0.2

Medium3/222.5-0.5

Low1/320.6-0.4

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

L. Dostal

ANA · 28/30 · .933

+2.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/81.9+0.9

Medium1/201.9+0.9

Low0/340.6+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

94 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DET

49 shots

Final

94 shots

ANA

45 shots

DET ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET left, ANA 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 · 3 A · 2 SOG · 15:44 on ice · +3

T. Terry

#19 · R · ANA

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:17 on ice · +3

C. Gauthier

#61 · L · ANA

0 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 18:21 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Oct 31

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:05 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 2.5 to 2.8 goal game favoring Anaheim at 55% win probability.

Anaheim's case rests on sustained process. The Ducks own 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 against Detroit's 49.0%, backed by 52.0% Corsi — a pattern reflecting territorial dominance and quality shot generation.

Both teams are underperforming luck. Anaheim's PDO is 0.981, Detroit's 0.985, meaning both are running cold relative to their shot quality and goaltending. The model assumes Anaheim's edge in chance creation will overcome this variance.

Alex DeBrincat leads Detroit at 0.88 xG/60, with 17 goals, 28 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and 9.0% shooting. Marco Kasper contributes 0.81 xG/60, 7 goals, 8 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and 6.1% shooting.

Beckett Sennecke operates for Anaheim at 1.03 xG/60, posting 20 goals, 19 assists, 8 high-danger goals, and 13.5% shooting. Cutter Gauthier similarly contributes at 0.99 xG/60, with 25 goals, 16 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and 12.9% conversion.

Defensively, Axel Sandin-Pellikka is Detroit's weak link, while Mason McTavish fills that role for Anaheim. The model's lean assumes Anaheim sustains its territorial advantage long enough to win despite both teams' current PDO cold snap.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 55%

55%

ANA

Model favorite

45%

55%

DET50ANA

ANA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.5–2.8 ANA; 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

DET← edge

edge →ANA

49.0%52.0%

2.382.80

2.502.59

1.732.09

2.072.32

0.9850.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 0.981) says DET has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

DET

7-3-0

+4 GD · 2d rest

ANA

5-3-2

+0 GD · 3d rest

0.985

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.981

ANA 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%.
The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

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 drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DET

Expected in goal

J. Gibson

2 days rest.909 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA

Expected in goal

L. Dostal

3 days rest.939 last start

Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page