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

L. Dostal stands tall as the Ducks edge the Devils

The verdict · earned

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

NJD 1 · ANA 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:26 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 underlying numbers said this was a close contest—expected goals split 4.55–3.84, less than a goal separating the teams. The scoreboard told a different story: Ducks 4, Devils 1. The gap came down to goaltending and execution.

L. Dostal was immense. He stopped 32 of 33 shots for a 0.970 save percentage, translating to 2.84 goals above expected. On the game's seven high-danger chances against him, he was perfect. That's not the footnote to an otherwise tense contest—that's the game itself.

New Jersey's goaltending, by contrast, leaked. J. Allen made 25 of 28 saves (0.893 SV%), beating expected by 1.55, but his team scored just once. The Devils created the volume they needed—8 high-danger chances, 9 rebound opportunities—yet converted zero of their seven true chances. That level of profligacy won't appear often.

Anaheim won by force. The Ducks were lethal in transition, converting 4 goals on 26 rush chances. That asymmetry—clinical finishing versus desperate searching—turned a close xG split into a rout. Shot attempts favored New Jersey slightly (29–33), but the Ducks' quality was unmistakable.

The Devils couldn't break through despite sustained pressure in the crease. They crashed the net effectively, generating rebound after rebound. The issue was finish: in a game where possession remained competitive, special moments—a perfect goaltending performance and precision on the rush—proved decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 2
NJD
1
ANA
4

L. Dostal stands tall as the Ducks edge the Devils

Chances 3.8 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NJD
3.84
ANA
4.55
46% of the chances54%

The board read NJD 1, ANA 4. The chances read NJD 3.8, ANA 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
−0.6
goals above expected
ANA4.55 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
NJD3.84 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Devils left 2.8 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. P1 04:13ANAB. Sennecke0–1
  2. P1 14:24ANAF. Vatrano0–2
  3. P2 01:54ANAC. Gauthier0–3
  4. P3 07:43NJDJ. Hughes1–3
  5. P3 18:06ANAC. KreiderEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NJD
51 shots
1
Final
94 shots
ANA
43 shots
4
NJD attackANA attack
NJD ANA Goal
51
shots · 1 in
43
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NJDANA
0 / 7
1.78 xG
High danger
2 / 8
2.51 xG
1 / 12
1.36 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.46 xG
0 / 51
0.70 xG
Low
1 / 45
0.57 xG

The Devils went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
L. Dostal
+2.8
ANA · 32/33
A
J. Allen
+1.6
NJD · 25/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

L. Dostal stands tall as the Ducks edge the Devils

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 14–9
  1. 04:13ANAB. Sennecke(C. Gauthier, R. Poehling)0–1
  2. 14:24ANAF. Vatrano(J. LaCombe)0–2
2ndshots 7–9
  1. 01:54ANAC. Gauthier(J. Trouba, B. Sennecke)0–3
3rdshots 12–11
  1. 07:43NJDJ. Hughes(D. Mercer, T. Meier)1–3
  2. 18:06ANAC. Kreiderempty net(L. Carlsson, P. Mintyukov)1–4

score reads NJD–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.55
ANA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.6
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.045
ANA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
48.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.84Expected goals4.55
ANA 54% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal29
7High-danger chances8
70All attempts (Corsi)67
Adjusted for score: NJD 58% · ANA 42%
Faceoffs · ANA won29%off71%neu45%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD0 / 7 · 1.78 xG
ANA2 / 8 · 2.51 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD1 / 12 · 1.36 xG
ANA1 / 14 · 1.46 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD0 / 51 · 0.70 xG
ANA1 / 45 · 0.57 xG

NJD went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.78 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
1 G · 3.84 xG · -2.8
ANA
4 G · 4.55 xG · -0.6
012345

NJD finished -2.8 against expected, ANA -0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
WRIST0/18
SNAP1/14
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN0/4
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/19
ANA
WRIST2/24
SNAP2/9
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/24
NJD
ANA
Off the rush
1 G on 28
1.56 xG
4 G on 26
3.25 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 9
1.54 xG
0 G on 2
0.41 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 0-for-18, ANA 2-for-24. ANA scored 4 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. Allen
NJD · 25/28 · .893
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.5+0.5
Medium1/141.5+0.5
Low1/450.6-0.4

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 · 32/33 · .970
+2.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.8+1.8
Medium1/121.4+0.4
Low0/510.7+0.7

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
NJD
51 shots
1
Final
94 shots
ANA
43 shots
4
NJD attackANA attack
NJD ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD 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
C. Gauthier
#61 · L · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 16:50 on ice · +2
B. Sennecke
#45 · R · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 15:38 on ice · +1
J. Hughes
#86 · C · NJD
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 24:07 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Nov 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:25 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

This is as close to a pick'em as hockey gets. The model projects a 2.5–2.8 final with the Ducks at 54% win probability—essentially a coin flip.

The underlying metrics are nearly identical: New Jersey carries 50.0% expected-goal share and 51.0% Corsi at 5v5; Anaheim owns 52.0% and 52.0%. Both teams generate and suppress chances at roughly the same rate. The story is execution. The Devils' 0.971 PDO and the Ducks' 0.981 PDO suggest both teams are running cold—and regression favors whoever gets hot first.

L. Dostal is on a back-to-back and may be rested or fatigued—watch for a possible backup appearance.

The Devils lean on Timo Meier (1.08 xG/60, 13 goals, 15 assists, 3 high-danger goals, 6.7% shooting) and Jack Hughes (0.88 xG/60, 18 goals, 17 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 11.5% shooting). Meier generates at high volume with low conversion; Hughes concentrates in premium chances. Anaheim counters with Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 25 goals, 16 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 12.9% shooting) and Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20 goals, 19 assists, 8 high-danger goals, 13.5% shooting). Sennecke's eight high-danger markers indicate real conversion, not variance.

Defensively, watch Johnathan Kovacevic (NJD) and Mason McTavish (ANA) get exposed on high-leverage assignments in a game this tight.

The verdict holds: neither team possesses sufficient structural edge to break the statistical tie.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 54%
54%
ANA
Model favorite
46%
54%
NJD50ANA

ANA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 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
NJD← edge
edge →ANA
50.0%52.0%
51.0%52.0%
2.452.80
2.502.59
1.662.09
2.232.32
0.9710.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 vs 0.981) says ANA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NJD
8-2-0
+9 GD · 2d rest
ANA
6-3-1
+4 GD · 1d rest
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • L. Dostal is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NJD
Expected in goal
J. Allen
2 days rest.821 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
back-to-back.933 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.

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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% 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