Motion-blurred skater in a Detroit Red Wings sweater
Breakdown · ANA at DET

Red Wings pull away from the Ducks

The verdict · coin flip

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

ANA 3 · DET 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:11 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

Detroit's 6–3 win conceals how close the underlying numbers suggest this game was. Anaheim generated more high-danger chances (7 to 6), and expected goals nearly split even (4.13 to 3.95), yet Detroit finished with 1.87 surplus goals—elite finishing or undeserved fortune.

The difference was in the crease. C. Talbot saved 0.55 goals above expected over 11 shots; J. Gibson posted 0.882 save percentage across 17 attempts. L. Dostal, meanwhile, let in 0.87 more goals than his chances predicted, the penalty for facing an efficient offense.

Detroit's efficiency was the story. The Red Wings scored twice from low-danger areas and converted 4 rush attempts from 29 chances. Anaheim managed only 3 goals from 33 rush tries despite that 7–6 high-danger edge.

A. DeBrincat (2G, 1A in 18:26) led the charge. M. Seider (1G, 1A in 25:03) and D. Larkin (1G, 1A in 20:04) provided depth. Detroit's finishing, not dominance, won the night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 13
ANA
3
DET
6

Red Wings pull away from the Ducks

Chances 4.0 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Red Wings took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.95
DET
4.13
49% of the chances51%

The board read ANA 3, DET 6. The chances read ANA 4.0, DET 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DET
+1.9
goals above expected
DET4.13 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.95 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Red Wings scored 1.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 05:57DETM. SeiderPP0–1
  2. P2 07:35ANAC. Gauthier1–1
  3. P2 12:42DETM. Rasmussen1–2
  4. P2 14:54ANAC. Kreider2–2
  5. P2 15:33DETA. Sandin-Pellikka2–3
  6. P3 00:50DETA. DeBrincatPP2–4
  7. P3 04:33ANAM. Granlund3–4
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
47 shots
3
Final
91 shots
DET
44 shots
6
ANA attackDET attack
ANA DET Goal
47
shots · 3 in
44
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANADET
1 / 7
1.74 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.79 xG
2 / 15
1.46 xG
Medium
3 / 15
1.66 xG
0 / 43
0.76 xG
Low
2 / 37
0.68 xG

High-danger looks: ANA 1 of 7, DET 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
C. Talbot
+3.0
DET · 10/11
A
J. Gibson
+1.9
DET · 15/17
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Red Wings pull away from the Ducks

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 10–10no goals
    2ndshots 7–16
    1. 05:57DETM. Seiderpower play(L. Raymond, P. Kane)0–1
    2. 07:35ANAC. Gauthier(B. Sennecke, J. Trouba)1–1
    3. 12:42DETM. Rasmussen(A. Copp, J. Berggren)1–2
    4. 14:54ANAC. Kreider(J. LaCombe, D. Helleson)2–2
    5. 15:33DETA. Sandin-Pellikka(M. Rasmussen, J. Berggren)2–3
    3rdshots 11–7
    1. 00:50DETA. DeBrincatpower play(M. Seider, P. Kane)2–4
    2. 04:33ANAM. Granlund(I. Moore, R. Strome)3–4
    3. 05:06DETD. Larkin(L. Raymond, A. DeBrincat)3–5
    4. 17:59DETA. DeBrincatempty net(D. Larkin)3–6

    score reads ANA–DET

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.13
    DET chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.9
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.057
    DET puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    47.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.95Expected goals4.13
    DET 51% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal33
    7High-danger chances6
    65All attempts (Corsi)58
    Adjusted for score: ANA 55% · DET 45%
    Faceoffs · DET won36%off50%neu56%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    ANA1 / 7 · 1.74 xG
    DET1 / 6 · 1.79 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    ANA2 / 15 · 1.46 xG
    DET3 / 15 · 1.66 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    ANA0 / 43 · 0.76 xG
    DET2 / 37 · 0.68 xG

    DET went 3-for-15 from medium danger on 1.66 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    ANA
    3 G · 3.95 xG · -0.9
    DET
    6 G · 4.13 xG · +1.9
    01234567

    ANA finished -0.9 against expected, DET +1.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    ANA
    SNAP1/12
    WRIST1/20
    TIP IN1/4
    SLAP0/6
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED0/2
    OTHER0/18
    DET
    SNAP2/22
    WRIST2/13
    TIP IN1/4
    SLAP0/2
    BACKHAND1/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/14
    ANA
    DET
    Off the rush
    3 G on 33
    2.91 xG
    4 G on 29
    2.47 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.61 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.56 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: ANA went 1-for-12, DET 2-for-22. DET 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
    L. Dostal
    ANA · 27/32 · .844
    -0.9
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.8+0.8
    Medium3/151.7-1.3
    Low2/370.7-1.3

    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. Gibson
    DET · 15/17 · .882
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.7+0.7
    Medium2/151.5-0.5
    Low0/430.8+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

    C. Talbot
    DET · 10/11 · .909
    +3.0
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.7+0.7
    Medium2/151.5-0.5
    Low0/430.8+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

    91 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    ANA
    47 shots
    3
    Final
    91 shots
    DET
    44 shots
    6
    ANA attackDET attack
    ANA DET Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, DET 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
    A. DeBrincat
    #93 · R · DET
    2 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 18:26 on ice · +1
    M. Seider
    #53 · D · DET
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 25:03 on ice
    D. Larkin
    #71 · C · DET
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:04 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Nov 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:50 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 2.6–2.6 final with Anaheim at 51% win probability. This is essentially a pick'em: the closest thing to a coin flip you'll find.

    Anaheim owns the underlying play. The Ducks drive 52.0% xG and 52.0% Corsi against Detroit's 49.0% on both fronts. That territorial dominance means expect Anaheim to spend more time in the offensive zone, though control of play doesn't guarantee control of the scoreboard.

    The Ducks' PDO sits at 0.981—running cold by the numbers, due for positive regression. Detroit's 0.985 sits closer to neutral. Over their next handful of games, Anaheim should see their unsustainable variance normalize upward. Tonight could be the start.

    Detroit counters with a rest edge. The Red Wings arrive on four days of recovery; the Ducks on zero. In a game this tight, that gap compounds in the third period and on special teams.

    The offensive battle hinges on Anaheim's dual threats. Cutter Gauthier leads with 25 goals, 16 assists, and 12.9% shooting at 0.99 xG per 60. Beckett Sennecke runs close behind: 20 goals, 19 assists, 1.03 xG per 60, though his 13.5% efficiency suggests he's benefited from variance luck. Detroit's Alex DeBrincat counters with 17 goals and 28 assists at 0.88 xG per 60 and 9.0% shooting—lower volume, more reliable finishing. Marco Kasper fills a secondary role: 7 goals, 8 assists, 0.81 xG per 60.

    On defense, Mason McTavish stands out as Anaheim's weak link, while Axel Sandin-Pellikka does the same for Detroit. Watch whether either team exploits these gaps late when the margin tightens.

    The only clean edge here is possession. Everything else cuts both ways or favors Anaheim only marginally. This is what 51% looks like: not quite either team's game to lose.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    ANA 51%
    51%
    ANA
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    ANA50DET

    ANA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.6–2.6 DET; 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 →DET
    52.0%49.0%
    52.0%49.0%
    2.802.38
    2.592.50
    2.091.73
    2.322.07
    0.9810.985

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

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 0–10
    ANA
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    DET
    4-6-0
    -11 GD · 4d rest
    0.981
    ANA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.985
    DET 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.
    • The Red Wings have 4 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    ANA
    Expected in goal
    —
    no game on file

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    DET
    Expected in goal
    J. Gibson
    4 days rest.789 last start
    Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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
    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next