Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · WPG at ANA

Ducks pull away from the Jets

FinalSun, Nov 9

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 1 · ANA 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:46 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

L. Dostal's goaltending, not the underlying play, determined the margin. He stopped 1.47 goals above expected on a 0.958 save percentage, while E. Comrie fell 0.75 short at 0.810. The Ducks controlled 57% of expected goals (3.25–2.47), warranting a win. The 4–1 final reflects elite goaltending more than elite hockey.

Anaheim converted chances at high rates. Off the rush, they scored 2 on 34 opportunities. On rebounds, they cashed 2 of 4. The power play scored twice on 10 shots, generating just 0.39 expected goals—proof that execution, not volume, drives blowouts.

Winnipeg's underlying play was closer than the scoreline suggests. The Jets matched Anaheim on high-danger chances at 3–3. But E. Comrie (0.810 SV%) couldn't match L. Dostal's dominance (0.958 SV%); that's where the 4–1 margin came from.

Three Stars:

#91 L. Carlsson (ANA) — 2G in 20:18
#61 C. Gauthier (ANA) — 2A in 17:14
#45 B. Sennecke (ANA) — 2G in 16:13

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 9

WPG

ANA

Ducks pull away from the Jets

Chances 2.5 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

WPG

2.47

ANA

3.25

43% of the chances57%

The board read WPG 1, ANA 4. The chances read WPG 2.5, ANA 3.3.

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

Luck check

ANA

+0.8

goals above expected

ANA3.25 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG2.47 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 07:18ANAB. Sennecke0–1
P1 19:03ANAL. CarlssonPP0–2
P2 04:22WPGK. Connor1–2
P2 11:48ANAB. Sennecke1–3
P3 02:47ANAL. CarlssonPP1–4

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

Where the shots came from

WPG

44 shots

Final

89 shots

ANA

45 shots

WPG ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

WPGANA

0 / 2

0.46 xG

High danger

1 / 3

0.80 xG

1 / 11

1.21 xG

Medium

3 / 14

1.60 xG

0 / 45

0.79 xG

Low

0 / 44

0.85 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 0 of 2, ANA 1 of 3.

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

In the net

B+

L. Dostal

+1.5

ANA · 23/24

E. Comrie

−0.8

WPG · 17/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks pull away from the Jets

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 9–9

07:18ANAB. Sennecke(C. Gauthier, D. Helleson)0–1
19:03ANAL. Carlssonpower play(T. Terry, C. Kreider)0–2

2ndshots 5–8

04:22WPGK. Connor(J. Morrissey, M. Scheifele)1–2
11:48ANAB. Sennecke(C. Gauthier, M. McTavish)1–3

3rdshots 10–4

02:47ANAL. Carlssonpower play(C. Kreider, J. LaCombe)1–4

score reads WPG–ANA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.25

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.8

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.048

ANA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

51.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.47Expected goals3.25

ANA 57% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal21

2High-danger chances3

58All attempts (Corsi)61

Adjusted for score: WPG 55% · ANA 45%

Faceoffs · ANA won44%off57%neu41%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

WPG0 / 2 · 0.46 xG

ANA1 / 3 · 0.80 xG

Medium dangermid-range

WPG1 / 11 · 1.21 xG

ANA3 / 14 · 1.60 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

WPG0 / 45 · 0.79 xG

ANA0 / 44 · 0.85 xG

ANA went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.60 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

WPG

1 G · 2.47 xG · -1.5

ANA

4 G · 3.25 xG · +0.8

012345

WPG finished -1.5 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

WPG

WRIST0/15

SNAP1/13

TIP IN0/7

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/14

ANA

WRIST2/22

SNAP2/15

TIP IN0/2

SLAP0/3

BACKHAND0/3

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/16

WPG

ANA

Off the rush

1 G on 26

1.52 xG

2 G on 34

2.52 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.04 xG

2 G on 4

0.57 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 0-for-15, ANA 2-for-22. ANA 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

E. Comrie

WPG · 17/21 · .810

-0.8

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.8-0.2

Medium3/141.6-1.4

Low0/440.8+0.8

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 · 23/24 · .958

+1.5

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium1/111.2+0.2

Low0/450.8+0.8

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

WPG

44 shots

Final

89 shots

ANA

45 shots

WPG ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:18 on ice

C. Gauthier

#61 · L · ANA

0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 17:14 on ice · +2

B. Sennecke

#45 · R · ANA

2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 16:13 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Nov 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:22 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 Ducks win with 56% confidence. Anaheim's underlying play justifies the lean: they own a 52.0% expected goals share at 5v5 compared to Winnipeg's 48.0%, and control territory at 52.0% Corsi. The Ducks are the better team in the possession sense.

The catch lives in what's already happened. Anaheim's 0.981 PDO—a composite of shooting and save percentage—runs cold by league standards and typically regresses upward. Some of this game's value hinges on whether that regression arrives here or later.

Winnipeg enters with a complicating factor: C. Hellebuyck faces a back-to-back schedule. Monitor the crease to see whether the Jets deploy a backup or ride the starter on tired legs. A fresh netminder changes the equation.

For Anaheim, Beckett Sennecke carries the offensive load at 1.03 expected goals per 60 minutes, with 20 goals and eight high-danger chances already this season. That volume—plus a 13.5% shooting rate—makes him the game's most dangerous individual threat. Cutter Gauthier (25 goals, 0.99 xG/60) provides secondary thrust.

Winnipeg leans on Nino Niederreiter and Kyle Connor as complementary threats. Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6 goals, 3 high-danger chances, 8.6% shooting) generates high-volume chances, though his conversion lags. Connor (0.83 xG/60, 13.0% shooting) creates fewer chances but capitalizes efficiently.

The territorial edge and underlying numbers favor Anaheim. The PDO regression—whether luck normalizes today or stretches the cold streak—is Winnipeg's narrow opening.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 56%

56%

ANA

Model favorite

44%

56%

WPG50ANA

ANA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 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

WPG← edge

edge →ANA

48.0%52.0%

49.0%52.0%

2.342.80

2.552.59

1.902.09

2.102.32

0.9980.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.981) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

WPG

6-4-0

+5 GD · 1d rest

ANA

7-2-1

+13 GD · 2d rest

0.998

WPG 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 48.0%.
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 48.0%.
The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
C. Hellebuyck 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

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

back-to-back.929 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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.

ANA

Expected in goal

L. Dostal

2 days rest.808 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

WPG

Nino Niederreiter6G 6A

0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh

Kyle Connor25G 30A

0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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