Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
← Sat, Nov 15 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at MIN

Wild shut out the Ducks, 2-0

FinalSat, Nov 15
ANAAnaheim Ducks0MINMinnesota Wild2
The verdict · earned

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

ANA 0 · MIN 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:04 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

Minnesota dominated Anaheim in process — 63% of expected goals (4.82–2.87) — yet still left 2.82 goals on the table. The difference between that underlying quality and a 2-0 scoreline tells the real story: the Ducks' powerlessness in high-danger areas and Minnesota's clinical execution when it mattered.

Anaheim generated looks that didn't show up in the shot count — 0.060 xG per shot versus Minnesota's 0.079 — but couldn't finish. They mustered only 5 high-danger chances and converted zero. P. Mrazek kept them alive at 0.966 SV%, a +3.82 advantage vs expected, but M. Boldy's wrist shot from the point in the third ended their resistance.

Minnesota generated far more dangerous chances (9 to 5) and proved more dangerous per attempt, yet they underperformed their own 4.82 expected goals by 2.82. That's a notable miss — J. Wallstedt's 1.000 SV% (+2.87 vs expected) on Anaheim's 5 high-danger chances masked the fact that Minnesota's forwards wasted quality.

The Wild found the goals they needed, J. Eriksson Ek orchestrating from the assist column while M. Johansson added the closer. But the hidden story is Wallstedt's wall and Anaheim's inability to beat him.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 15
ANA
0
MIN
2

Wild shut out the Ducks, 2-0

Chances 2.9 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
2.87
MIN
4.82
37% of the chances63%

The board read ANA 0, MIN 2. The chances read ANA 2.9, MIN 4.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
−2.8
goals above expected
MIN4.82 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA2.87 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks left 2.9 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. P2 00:55MINM. Johansson0–1
  2. P3 19:05MINM. BoldyEN0–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
41 shots
0
Final
87 shots
MIN
46 shots
2
ANA attackMIN attack
ANA MIN Goal
41
shots · 0 in
46
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANAMIN
0 / 5
1.19 xG
High danger
2 / 9
2.59 xG
0 / 11
1.07 xG
Medium
0 / 15
1.55 xG
0 / 32
0.61 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.68 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
P. Mrazek
+3.8
ANA · 28/29
A+
J. Wallstedt
+2.9
MIN · 28/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild shut out the Ducks, 2-0

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 8–9no goals
    2ndshots 11–10
    1. 00:55MINM. Johansson(M. Boldy, R. Hartman)0–1
    3rdshots 9–11
    1. 19:05MINM. Boldyempty net(J. Middleton, J. Eriksson Ek)0–2

    score reads ANA–MIN

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.82
    MIN chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.033
    MIN puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    56.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.87Expected goals4.82
    MIN 63% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal30
    5High-danger chances9
    48All attempts (Corsi)61
    Adjusted for score: ANA 47% · MIN 53%
    Faceoffs · MIN won55%off67%neu56%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    ANA0 / 5 · 1.19 xG
    MIN2 / 9 · 2.59 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    ANA0 / 11 · 1.07 xG
    MIN0 / 15 · 1.55 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    ANA0 / 32 · 0.61 xG
    MIN0 / 37 · 0.68 xG

    MIN went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.55 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    ANA
    0 G · 2.87 xG · -2.9
    MIN
    2 G · 4.82 xG · -2.8
    0123456

    ANA finished -2.9 against expected, MIN -2.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    ANA
    WRIST0/17
    SNAP0/15
    TIP IN0/3
    SLAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/1
    OTHER0/7
    MIN
    WRIST1/34
    SNAP0/3
    TIP IN0/7
    SLAP0/0
    BACKHAND1/2
    OTHER0/15
    ANA
    MIN
    Off the rush
    0 G on 27
    2.18 xG
    1 G on 34
    3.26 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.21 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.13 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-17, MIN 1-for-34.

    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
    P. Mrazek
    ANA · 28/29 · .966
    +3.8
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/92.6+0.6
    Medium0/151.6+1.6
    Low0/370.7+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

    J. Wallstedt
    MIN · 28/28 · 1.000
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.2+1.2
    Medium0/111.1+1.1
    Low0/320.6+0.6

    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

    87 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    ANA
    41 shots
    0
    Final
    87 shots
    MIN
    46 shots
    2
    ANA attackMIN attack
    ANA MIN Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, MIN 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. Boldy
    #12 · L · MIN
    1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 25:31 on ice · +2
    J. Eriksson Ek
    #14 · C · MIN
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 24:17 on ice · +1
    M. Johansson
    #90 · L · MIN
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 18:50 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Nov 15
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:02 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 2.6–2.7 goal game with Minnesota at 52% win probability—close enough to a pick'em.

    Both teams post identical 52.0% expected-goal share at 5-on-5, but Anaheim's edge in possession is cleaner: 52.0% Corsi to Minnesota's 48.0%. The Ducks drive the play. Yet Minnesota has the hot hand—their 1.007 PDO suggests unsustainable run scoring—while Anaheim's 0.981 PDO sits cold. The Ducks are due for positive regression, a factor that complicates the short-term outcome.

    The Wild arrive with a three-day rest advantage against Anaheim's one, a meaningful tilt in a tight matchup. Watch for L. Dostal to start on back-to-back goaltending; the minutes matter when every goal counts this close.

    Beckett Sennecke drives Anaheim's offense at 1.03 expected goals per 60 minutes and carries 20 goals with 8 on high danger. Cutter Gauthier pairs similar volume (0.99 xG/60) with 25 goals at 12.9% shooting—efficient finishing that makes him dangerous. On Minnesota's side, Matt Boldy offers 0.89 xG/60 across 22 goals and 5 high-danger tallies; he's the engine that matters.

    Anaheim dominates possession but hasn't converted that control into high-danger chances at sustainable rates. Minnesota's defense leans on Matt Kiersted, a structural liability in a team this talented. Mason McTavish represents Anaheim's defensive weak link. Depth wins matchups this tight.

    Minnesota's rest and favorable run-luck edge Anaheim's possession dominance by the slimmest margin at 52%. This is chaos territory.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    MIN 52%
    52%
    MIN
    Model favorite
    48%
    52%
    ANA50MIN

    MIN by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.6–2.7 MIN; 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 →MIN
    52.0%52.0%
    52.0%48.0%
    2.802.55
    2.592.40
    2.092.04
    2.321.93
    0.9811.007

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.007) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    ANA
    7-3-0
    +10 GD · 1d rest
    MIN
    4-3-3
    -2 GD · 3d rest
    0.981
    ANA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.007
    MIN 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 Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • 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.
    • The Wild have 2 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    ANA
    Expected in goal
    L. Dostal
    back-to-back.844 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.

    MIN
    Expected in goal
    F. Gustavsson
    3 days rest.889 last start
    Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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
    MIN
    Matt Boldy22G 18A
    0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Robby Fabbri2G 3A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page