Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · ANA at DAL

Ducks hold off the Stars

FinalThu, Nov 6

The verdict · earned

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

ANA 7 · DAL 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:57 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 beat the Stars 7-5 by outperforming their xG by 3.14 goals, offsetting a poor performance by Dostal, who yielded 1.53 more goals than expected. Oettinger also underperformed by 2.14. The underlying metrics remained close—the Stars generated 3.47 xG while the Ducks created 3.86, a 47-53 split suggesting a tight underlying contest.

Dallas held 51% of shot attempts (26-25 on goal), but the high-danger zone proved decisive. The Stars recorded 7 HD attempts and scored 0. The Ducks posted 5 and scored 4. Dostal, despite his underperformance, was immaculate in close: 100% save rate on all 7 high-danger shots. Mason McTavish's snap shot from the doorstep (period 3, 18:07) exemplified Anaheim's precision.

Dallas proved efficient off the rush—5 goals on 24 chances. Anaheim matched that efficiency, scoring 7 on 30 opportunities. Per-shot quality favored the Stars (0.083 xG per shot vs. the Ducks' 0.063), yet Anaheim capitalized on their looks. Dallas outperformed their xG by 1.53, but the Ducks' 3.14 goal outperformance proved decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 6

ANA

DAL

Ducks hold off the Stars

Chances 3.9 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

ANA

3.86

DAL

3.47

53% of the chances47%

The board read ANA 7, DAL 5. The chances read ANA 3.9, DAL 3.5.

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

Luck check

ANA

+3.1

goals above expected

ANA3.86 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

DAL3.47 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

The Ducks scored 3.1 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 05:49DALW. JohnstonPP0–1
P1 16:18DALW. JohnstonPP0–2
P2 01:16ANAC. KreiderPP1–2
P2 02:48ANAI. Moore2–2
P2 08:19DALT. Seguin2–3
P2 14:07ANAC. Gauthier3–3
P2 17:05ANAO. ZellwegerPP4–3

+5 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

ANA

40 shots

Final

72 shots

DAL

32 shots

ANA DAL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 7 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

ANADAL

4 / 5

1.75 xG

High danger

0 / 7

1.65 xG

2 / 14

1.48 xG

Medium

4 / 11

1.48 xG

1 / 42

0.64 xG

Low

1 / 24

0.33 xG

The Stars went 0 for 7 from the slot.

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

In the net

L. Dostal

−1.5

ANA · 21/26

J. Oettinger

−2.1

DAL · 18/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks hold off the Stars

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 7–8

05:49DALW. Johnstonpower play(M. Rantanen, M. Heiskanen)0–1
16:18DALW. Johnstonpower play(M. Heiskanen, J. Robertson)0–2

2ndshots 11–5

01:16ANAC. Kreiderpower play(L. Carlsson)1–2
02:48ANAI. Moore(R. Poehling, N. Nesterenko)2–2
08:19DALT. Seguin(S. Steel, M. Heiskanen)2–3
14:07ANAC. Gauthier(A. Killorn)3–3
17:05ANAO. Zellwegerpower play(B. Sennecke, A. Killorn)4–3

3rdshots 7–13

00:16ANAC. Kreider(D. Helleson, T. Terry)5–3
01:50DALM. Rantanenpower play(W. Johnston, J. Robertson)5–4
09:22ANAL. Carlssonshorthanded(T. Terry)6–4
16:39DALR. Hintzpower play(M. Rantanen, M. Heiskanen)6–5
18:07ANAM. McTavishempty net(B. Sennecke, C. Gauthier)7–5

score reads ANA–DAL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.86

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+3.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

0.996

ANA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

59.2%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.86Expected goals3.47

ANA 53% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal26

5High-danger chances7

61All attempts (Corsi)42

Adjusted for score: ANA 59% · DAL 41%

Faceoffs · DAL won58%off50%neu75%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

ANA4 / 5 · 1.75 xG

DAL0 / 7 · 1.65 xG

Medium dangermid-range

ANA2 / 14 · 1.48 xG

DAL4 / 11 · 1.48 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

ANA1 / 42 · 0.64 xG

DAL1 / 24 · 0.33 xG

DAL went 4-for-11 from medium danger on 1.48 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

ANA

7 G · 3.86 xG · +3.1

DAL

5 G · 3.47 xG · +1.5

012345678

ANA finished +3.1 against expected, DAL +1.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

ANA

SNAP5/27

TIP IN1/8

SLAP1/4

WRAP AROUND0/1

WRIST0/0

BACKHAND0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/21

DAL

SNAP3/21

TIP IN1/4

SLAP0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

WRIST0/2

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED1/1

OTHER0/10

ANA

DAL

Off the rush

7 G on 30

3.45 xG

5 G on 24

3.06 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.19 xG

0 G on 1

0.04 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: ANA went 5-for-27, DAL 3-for-21. ANA scored 7 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 · 21/26 · .808

-1.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/71.6+1.6

Medium4/111.5-2.5

Low1/240.3-0.7

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

J. Oettinger

DAL · 18/24 · .750

-2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger4/51.8-2.3

Medium2/141.5-0.5

Low1/420.6-0.4

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

72 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

ANA

40 shots

Final

72 shots

DAL

32 shots

ANA DAL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, DAL 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. Heiskanen

#4 · D · DAL

0 G · 4 A · 2 SOG · 26:07 on ice · -1

W. Johnston

#53 · C · DAL

2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:02 on ice · -1

M. Rantanen

#96 · R · DAL

1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 21:45 on ice · -2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Nov 6

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:52 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 2.5–2.6 goal game with the Stars at 51% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Anaheim dominates in play. The Ducks own a 52.0% Corsi and 52.0% xG against Dallas's 47.0% Corsi and 51.0% xG—the visitor controls both volume and quality of shot. Yet Dallas's PDO of 1.024 outpaces Anaheim's 0.981, suggesting the Stars are running hot while the Ducks run cold.

Beckett Sennecke drives Anaheim's offense at 1.03 xG/60, producing 20G 19A with 8 high-danger goals on 13.5% shooting. Cutter Gauthier provides secondary scoring at 0.99 xG/60, adding 25G 16A, 2 HD goals, and 12.9% shooting. Jason Robertson leads Dallas at 0.96 xG/60, with 25G 21A, 2 HD goals, and 12.4% shooting, while Michael Bunting operates in depth at 0.83 xG/60, contributing 8G 14A on 7.6% shooting.

Defensively, Anaheim lists Mason McTavish as a vulnerability; Dallas's is Tyler Myers.

The play says Anaheim. The luck says Dallas. The model splits the difference.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 51%

51%

DAL

Model favorite

49%

51%

ANA50DAL

DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.5–2.6 DAL; 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 →DAL

52.0%51.0%

52.0%47.0%

2.802.36

2.592.29

2.092.07

2.321.68

0.9811.024

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

ANA

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

DAL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.981

ANA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.024

DAL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

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

Regression watch

The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

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

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page