Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · BOS at ANA

Ducks hold off the Bruins

FinalWed, Nov 19

The verdict · earned

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

BOS 3 · ANA 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:07 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

Anaheim dominated the high-danger chances 8–1, yet barely outran Boston 4–3 — a result that understates how thoroughly the Ducks controlled what matters most.

The Ducks held 46% of shot attempts (33–39 on goal) and converted their efficiency into a 3.88–3.56 expected-goals edge. But the lopsided high-danger count — eight prime scoring chances to Boston's one — should have produced a wider margin.

Boston survived through rush efficiency: the Bruins scored three goals on 36 rush attempts, a lethal conversion rate compared to Anaheim's two on 29. The Ducks scored two of their four goals from low-danger spots — the kind of chances J. Korpisalo had to have.

J. Korpisalo made 29 saves on 33 shots (0.879 SV%). L. Dostal was far superior: 36-for-39 (0.923 SV%), outperforming his expected goals by 0.56.

Ian Moore's slap shot from the top of the circles in the third period (16:25) was the game's turning point.

Three Stars

#27 H. Lindholm (BOS) — 2A in 22:01
#39 M. Geekie (BOS) — 2G in 18:23
#23 M. McTavish (ANA) — 2A in 17:27

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 19

BOS

ANA

Ducks hold off the Bruins

Chances 3.6 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Ducks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

BOS

3.56

ANA

3.88

48% of the chances52%

The board read BOS 3, ANA 4. The chances read BOS 3.6, ANA 3.9.

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

Luck check

ANA

+0.1

goals above expected

ANA3.88 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

BOS3.56 expected · 3 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 02:29ANAJ. Harkins0–1
P1 06:29ANAR. Gudas0–2
P1 14:58BOSM. GeekiePP1–2
P2 13:47ANAR. StromePP1–3
P2 18:27BOSM. Eyssimont2–3
P3 07:39BOSM. GeekiePP3–3
P3 16:25ANAI. Moore3–4

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

Where the shots came from

BOS

53 shots

Final

99 shots

ANA

46 shots

BOS ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BOSANA

0 / 1

0.22 xG

High danger

2 / 8

1.84 xG

2 / 20

2.34 xG

Medium

0 / 14

1.50 xG

1 / 52

0.99 xG

Low

2 / 47

0.54 xG

The Ducks buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

L. Dostal

+0.6

ANA · 36/39

J. Korpisalo

−0.1

BOS · 29/33

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks hold off the Bruins

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 18–11

02:29ANAJ. Harkins(R. Johnston, N. Nesterenko)0–1
06:29ANAR. Gudas(M. McTavish, B. Sennecke)0–2
14:58BOSM. Geekiepower play(H. Lindholm, P. Zacha)1–2

2ndshots 12–8

13:47ANAR. Stromepower play(M. McTavish, C. Gauthier)1–3
18:27BOSM. Eyssimont(N. Zadorov)2–3

3rdshots 9–14

07:39BOSM. Geekiepower play(D. Pastrnak, H. Lindholm)3–3
16:25ANAI. Moore(L. Carlsson, T. Terry)3–4

score reads BOS–ANA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.88

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.017

ANA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

48.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.56Expected goals3.88

ANA 52% of the chance quality

39Shots on goal33

1High-danger chances8

73All attempts (Corsi)69

Adjusted for score: BOS 55% · ANA 45%

Faceoffs · ANA won40%off50%neu42%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BOS0 / 1 · 0.22 xG

ANA2 / 8 · 1.84 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BOS2 / 20 · 2.34 xG

ANA0 / 14 · 1.50 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BOS1 / 52 · 0.99 xG

ANA2 / 47 · 0.54 xG

ANA went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.50 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BOS

3 G · 3.56 xG · -0.6

ANA

4 G · 3.88 xG · +0.1

012345

BOS finished -0.6 against expected, ANA +0.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

BOS

WRIST1/19

SNAP0/11

SLAP0/9

TIP IN2/7

BACKHAND0/4

WRAP AROUND0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/20

ANA

WRIST1/17

SNAP0/13

SLAP2/7

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND0/4

WRAP AROUND0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/23

BOS

ANA

Off the rush

3 G on 36

2.71 xG

2 G on 29

2.96 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.13 xG

1 G on 3

0.32 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BOS went 1-for-19, ANA 1-for-17. BOS 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

J. Korpisalo

BOS · 29/33 · .879

-0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/81.8-0.2

Medium0/141.5+1.5

Low2/470.5-1.5

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 · 36/39 · .923

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.2+0.2

Medium2/202.3+0.3

Low1/521.0-0.0

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

99 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BOS

53 shots

Final

99 shots

ANA

46 shots

BOS ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BOS 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

H. Lindholm

#27 · D · BOS

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:01 on ice · -3

M. Geekie

#39 · C · BOS

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 18:23 on ice

M. McTavish

#23 · C · ANA

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:27 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Nov 19

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:49 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

Anaheim's underlying play gives it the edge. The model projects a 2.5 - 2.9 goal game with the Ducks at 56% win probability, built on possession metrics that favor the visitors decisively. At 5v5, Anaheim generates 52.0% expected goals to Boston's 47.0% and controls the puck at 52.0% Corsi to 49.0%. The territorial advantage is clear.

The model's case strengthens when you factor in PDO regression. Anaheim sits at 0.981, meaning execution and goaltending have underperformed their underlying numbers. Boston is at 1.023, having caught luck on both fronts. Over 60 minutes, regression logic favors Anaheim—variance typically resets.

Fatigue introduces risk. L. Dostal and J. Swayman are both on back-to-backs, meaning a backup appearance or a visibly worn starter could alter the game's texture early.

Anaheim's scoring advantage is decisive. Beckett Sennecke (20G, 1.03 xG/60, 8 high-danger goals) and Cutter Gauthier (25G, 0.99 xG/60, 2 HD goals) form an elite pairing that Boston's secondary scoring cannot match. Viktor Arvidsson (1.04 xG/60, 18G, 2 HD goals) keeps the Bruins in contention, but Tanner Jeannot (6G, 0.75 xG/60) doesn't generate sufficient volume to offset Anaheim's wing depth.

Boston's path runs through defensive discipline and structure, betting on Arvidsson to capitalize on limited clean looks. Anaheim plays the better hockey and should be fresher. The model is decisive. Ducks.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 56%

56%

ANA

Model favorite

44%

56%

BOS50ANA

ANA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BOS 2.5–2.9 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

BOS← edge

edge →ANA

47.0%52.0%

49.0%52.0%

2.392.80

2.672.59

2.222.09

1.822.32

1.0230.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.023 vs 0.981) says BOS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BOS

8-2-0

+8 GD · 1d rest

ANA

7-3-0

+9 GD · 1d rest

1.023

BOS 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 47.0%.
The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
The Bruins' PDO is 1.023 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Ducks own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
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.
J. Swayman 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

BOS

Expected in goal

J. Swayman

back-to-back.906 last start

Backup Jeremy Swayman · +28.8 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

back-to-back.889 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.

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

BOS

Viktor Arvidsson18G 24A

1.04 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh

Tanner Jeannot6G 14A

0.75 xG/60 · 2 HD · 8.3% 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