Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater

Breakdown · ANA at COL

Avalanche run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Nov 11

ANAAnaheim Ducks1 COLColorado Avalanche4

The verdict · earned

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

ANA 1 · COL 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:33 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

Equal shot attempts but a 4-1 scoreline. Colorado overwhelmed Anaheim with superior shot quality, controlling 62% of expected goals (4.90–3.03). The Ducks generated dangerous looks and underperformed their xG by 2.03 goals—a massive, game-deciding gap.

Efficiency defined Colorado's win. They dominated high-danger chances (4–3) and scored three goals on 31 rush chances. #29 N. MacKinnon collected 3 assists. #62 A. Lehkonen added 1 goal and 1 assist. #8 C. Makar contributed 1 assist. The Avalanche slightly underperformed their xG (0.90 goals) but crushed Anaheim by crashing the net—3 rebounds created, 1 converted.

Anaheim's collapse was two-part: elite goaltending insufficient to overcome poor shot quality. L. Dostal stopped 1.9 goals above expected, a stellar performance that proved pointless. The team shot 0.049 xG per attempt versus Colorado's 0.064, a telling quality gap. S. Wedgewood capitalized on Colorado's superiority, saving 2.03 above expected to seal the rout.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 11

ANA

COL

Avalanche run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.0 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

ANA

3.03

COL

4.90

38% of the chances62%

The board read ANA 1, COL 4. The chances read ANA 3.0, COL 4.9.

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

Luck check

COL

−0.9

goals above expected

COL4.90 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

ANA3.03 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Ducks left 2.0 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 00:28COLA. Lehkonen0–1
P1 18:16ANAL. Carlsson1–1
P2 11:37COLG. Landeskog1–2
P3 07:02COLM. NecasPP1–3
P3 17:39COLP. KellyEN1–4

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

Where the shots came from

ANA

45 shots

Final

96 shots

COL

51 shots

ANA COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

ANACOL

1 / 3

0.63 xG

High danger

1 / 4

1.70 xG

0 / 13

1.60 xG

Medium

3 / 21

2.39 xG

0 / 46

0.80 xG

Low

0 / 51

0.80 xG

High-danger looks: ANA 1 of 3, COL 1 of 4.

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

In the net

S. Wedgewood

+2.0

COL · 35/36

L. Dostal

+1.9

ANA · 32/35

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 12–12

00:28COLA. Lehkonen(N. MacKinnon, C. Makar)0–1
18:16ANAL. Carlsson(J. Trouba, T. Terry)1–1

2ndshots 7–11

11:37COLG. Landeskog(V. Nichushkin, S. Malinski)1–2

3rdshots 17–13

07:02COLM. Necaspower play(A. Lehkonen, N. MacKinnon)1–3
17:39COLP. Kellyempty net(N. MacKinnon, B. Nelson)1–4

score reads ANA–COL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.90

COL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.9

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.036

COL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

55.1%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.03Expected goals4.90

COL 62% of the chance quality

36Shots on goal36

3High-danger chances4

62All attempts (Corsi)76

Adjusted for score: ANA 49% · COL 51%

Faceoffs · COL won57%off43%neu52%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

ANA1 / 3 · 0.63 xG

COL1 / 4 · 1.70 xG

Medium dangermid-range

ANA0 / 13 · 1.60 xG

COL3 / 21 · 2.39 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

ANA0 / 46 · 0.80 xG

COL0 / 51 · 0.80 xG

ANA went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.60 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

ANA

1 G · 3.03 xG · -2.0

COL

4 G · 4.90 xG · -0.9

0123456

ANA finished -2.0 against expected, COL -0.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

ANA

WRIST1/24

SNAP0/10

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/2

POKE0/1

OTHER0/17

COL

WRIST0/23

SNAP2/15

SLAP0/5

TIP IN1/6

BACKHAND1/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/25

ANA

COL

Off the rush

1 G on 31

2.17 xG

3 G on 31

3.34 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.34 xG

1 G on 3

0.65 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 1-for-24, COL 0-for-23. COL 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

L. Dostal

ANA · 32/35 · .914

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.7+0.7

Medium3/212.4-0.6

Low0/510.8+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

S. Wedgewood

COL · 35/36 · .972

+2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.6-0.4

Medium0/131.6+1.6

Low0/460.8+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

96 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

ANA

45 shots

Final

96 shots

COL

51 shots

ANA COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, COL 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

N. MacKinnon

#29 · C · COL

0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 20:59 on ice · +2

A. Lehkonen

#62 · L · COL

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 19:57 on ice · +1

C. Makar

#8 · D · COL

0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:54 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Nov 11

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:32 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

Colorado's model edge is convincing: 57% win probability in a projected 2.5–3.0 goal game. The gap isn't subtle. The Avalanche control play at 57.0% xG% and 57.0% Corsi%, while Anaheim sits at 52.0% in both — a five-percentage-point advantage in underlying play is decisive.

The Ducks have looked sharp in recency (9-1-0 in their last 10), but this is precisely where PDO tells a story the eye misses. Anaheim's 0.981 PDO runs cold; Colorado's 1.021 runs hot. Expect regression here. Anaheim will likely track closer to its underlying play going forward, while Colorado will cool slightly. That reversal isn't dramatic enough to erase Colorado's structural edge, but it tightens the margin.

Goaltending carries uncertainty. Both M. Blackwood and L. Dostal work back-to-backs, which flags a possibility of backup appearances or diminished performance from tired starters.

Colorado's advantage flows through two high-volume scorers: Artturi Lehkonen (1.11 xG/60, 18G 22A, 6 HD goals, 14.9% shooting) and Ross Colton (1.10 xG/60, 7G 15A, 1 HD goals). Lehkonen's 14.9% shooting rate and six high-danger goals mark a player converting chances at an elite clip. Anaheim counters with Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 25G 16A, 2 HD goals, 12.9% shooting) and Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20G 19A, 8 HD goals, 13.5% shooting). Sennecke's eight high-danger goals suggest efficacy in scoring from prime real estate, though his overall volume remains modest.

The model's lean on Colorado holds. The Ducks' recent run is real, but it's built partly on fortune — the kind PDO regression should touch. That said, Anaheim's underlying play isn't catastrophically bad, and back-to-back goaltending situations can always produce an upset. The Avalanche remain the more reliable lean.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 57%

57%

COL

Model favorite

43%

57%

ANA50COL

COL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score ANA 2.5–3.0 COL; 17% 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 →COL

52.0%57.0%

2.803.03

2.592.30

2.092.63

2.321.56

0.9811.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

ANA

9-1-0

+21 GD · 1d rest

COL

5-1-4

+11 GD · 1d rest

0.981

ANA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.021

COL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
M. Blackwood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
L. Dostal is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Ducks are the hotter team by points pace (9-1-0 in their last 10).
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

ANA

Expected in goal

L. Dostal

back-to-back.958 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.

COL

Expected in goal

M. Blackwood

back-to-back.879 last start

Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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

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

COL

Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A

1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh

Ross Colton7G 15A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page