Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
Breakdown · OTT at ANA

Senators run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

OTT 3 · ANA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:01 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

Ottawa dominated on every underlying metric — 63% of expected goals (4.37–2.53), 0.072 xG per shot against Anaheim's 0.047 — yet barely won 3–2. The Senators went 0-for-6 on high-danger chances. That margin of error nearly didn't exist.

Anaheim converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances (50%), staying afloat despite the underlying onslaught. P. Mrazek stopped all six of Ottawa's high-danger chances and finished 22-for-25 (0.880 SV%, +1.37 vs expected). One exceptional goaltending performance prevented a larger margin of victory.

Drake Batherson's tip-in from the slot (P3, 18:02) proved decisive. L. Ullmark (23/25, 0.920 SV%, +0.53 vs expected) was steady in return. Ottawa's edge was on transition — two goals on 24 rush attempts, plus three rebound chances created. Anaheim also generated three rebounds and converted one, but the volume difference was stark.

The shot attempts finished even at 25–25, but Ottawa's chances were superior in texture: 0.072 xG per shot versus 0.047. Ottawa dominated high-danger territory with six prime looks to Anaheim's four. The Senators' inability to finish most of those chances left them vulnerable.

J. Sanderson led Ottawa with 1 assist over 24:16, while S. Pinto scored in 19:36. For Anaheim, T. Terry recorded 1 assist in 19:47, nearly stealing a win against an opponent that controlled the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 20
OTT
3
ANA
2

Senators run the Ducks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.4 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
4.37
ANA
2.53
63% of the chances37%

The board read OTT 3, ANA 2. The chances read OTT 4.4, ANA 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−1.4
goals above expected
OTT4.37 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA2.53 expected · 2 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
  1. P1 16:39OTTN. Cousins1–0
  2. P2 13:08ANAB. Sennecke1–1
  3. P2 14:34ANAM. McTavish1–2
  4. P2 19:02OTTS. PintoPP2–2
  5. P3 18:02OTTD. Batherson3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
40 shots
3
Final
83 shots
ANA
43 shots
2
OTT attackANA attack
OTT ANA Goal
40
shots · 3 in
43
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTANA
0 / 6
1.78 xG
High danger
2 / 4
0.86 xG
3 / 18
2.16 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.12 xG
0 / 37
0.44 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.55 xG

High-danger looks: OTT 0 of 6, ANA 2 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
P. Mrazek
+1.4
ANA · 22/25
B
L. Ullmark
+0.5
OTT · 23/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators 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 10–3
  1. 16:39OTTN. Cousins(N. Jensen, D. Cozens)1–0
2ndshots 10–12
  1. 13:08ANAB. Sennecke(C. Gauthier, L. Carlsson)1–1
  2. 14:34ANAM. McTavish(C. Kreider, T. Terry)1–2
  3. 19:02OTTS. Pintopower play(S. Halliday, D. Perron)2–2
3rdshots 5–10
  1. 18:02OTTD. Batherson(J. Sanderson, J. Spence)3–2

score reads OTT–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.37
OTT chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.4
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.012
OTT puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
53.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.37Expected goals2.53
OTT 63% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal25
6High-danger chances4
61All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: OTT 52% · ANA 49%
Faceoffs · ANA won41%off58%neu40%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
OTT0 / 6 · 1.78 xG
ANA2 / 4 · 0.86 xG
Medium dangermid-range
OTT3 / 18 · 2.16 xG
ANA0 / 11 · 1.12 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
OTT0 / 37 · 0.44 xG
ANA0 / 39 · 0.55 xG

OTT went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.78 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
OTT
3 G · 4.37 xG · -1.4
ANA
2 G · 2.53 xG · -0.5
012345

OTT finished -1.4 against expected, ANA -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
OTT
WRIST1/15
SNAP0/7
SLAP1/10
TIP IN1/6
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/21
ANA
WRIST2/18
SNAP0/12
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/7
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/11
OTT
ANA
Off the rush
2 G on 24
2.44 xG
1 G on 29
1.61 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.41 xG
1 G on 3
0.66 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-15, ANA 2-for-18. OTT 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
L. Ullmark
OTT · 23/25 · .920
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/40.9-1.1
Medium0/111.1+1.1
Low0/390.6+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

P. Mrazek
ANA · 22/25 · .880
+1.4
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.8+1.8
Medium3/182.2-0.8
Low0/370.4+0.4

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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
OTT
40 shots
3
Final
83 shots
ANA
43 shots
2
OTT attackANA attack
OTT ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
J. Sanderson
#85 · D · OTT
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 24:16 on ice
T. Terry
#19 · R · ANA
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:47 on ice
S. Pinto
#12 · C · OTT
1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 19:36 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Nov 20
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:00 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 game with the Senators at 51% win probability. This is functionally a pick'em.

Ottawa owns the underlying play. The Senators control 56.0% of expected goals at 5v5 versus Anaheim's 52.0%, and lead 53.0% to 52.0% in Corsi%. That dominance in shot quality and volume should compound over time.

But Anaheim is overdue. The Ducks' PDO of 0.981 sits below Ottawa's 0.993, meaning they've been unlucky on bounces and finished chances. Positive regression is plausible.

Rest favors the visitors. The Ducks arrive on 2 days of rest; the Senators on 4. That edge typically helps road teams control pace.

Ottawa's attack revolves around Brady Tkachuk, who generates 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes and has recorded 11 goals and 20 assists with 2 high-danger chances. His 7.5% shooting rate sits below his historical mark, suggesting room for normalization. Dylan Cozens provides secondary firepower at 1.00 xG/60 with 13 goals, 15 assists, and a 9.5% shooting percentage.

Anaheim counters with Beckett Sennecke and Cutter Gauthier. Sennecke has converted 1.03 xG/60 into 20 goals and 19 assists, posting a 13.5% conversion rate and 8 high-danger goals. Gauthier operates at nearly identical underlying volume—0.99 xG/60—but has been far more prolific: 25 goals, 16 assists, 12.9% conversion rate, 2 high-danger goals. Both are long-term talent running at or slightly below their expected output rate.

The structural tension is the entire game. Ottawa should dominate possession and shots. Anaheim might dominate the scoreboard anyway. The Senators' play quality versus the Ducks' personnel and overdue luck creates a genuine toss-up.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

OTT 51%
51%
OTT
Model favorite
51%
49%
OTT50ANA

OTT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 2.6–2.6 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
OTT← edge
edge →ANA
56.0%52.0%
53.0%52.0%
2.662.80
2.122.59
2.182.09
1.992.32
0.9930.981

OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 0.981) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
OTT
5-2-3
+3 GD · 4d rest
ANA
7-3-0
+9 GD · 2d rest
0.993
OTT 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 Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Senators have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
OTT
Expected in goal
L. Ullmark
4 days rest.944 last start
Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
2 days rest.889 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
OTT
Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
Dylan Cozens13G 15A
1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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