The Canucks won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.
The Ducks were better — just not in ways that showed on the scoreboard. Anaheim controlled shot attempts at 59% (41–28) and led in expected goals 5.75–5.49, yet lost 5-4 to Vancouver. The gap reveals a different story: the Ducks generated more shots but lower-quality chances.
That quality margin proved decisive. Vancouver's chances averaged 0.083 xG per shot; Anaheim's, 0.063. Higher efficiency on lower volume — the Canucks got what they needed and wasted nothing on the margins.
Goaltending tipped the scales further. N. Tolopilo stopped 1.75 goals above expectation, a performance far beyond the line between good and brilliant. P. Mrazek (ANA) overperformed too (+1.49), but even his brilliance couldn't overcome Anaheim's underlying performance shortfall of 1.8 goals against xG.
Anaheim's power play was lethal — two goals on 24 shots (2.00 xG) — and the rush game offered another avenue: two goals on 37 rush chances. But Vancouver answered on both fronts. The Canucks scored three rushing goals on 28 chances, and their higher-danger chances (7 to Anaheim's 5) converted at a better rate, even as the Ducks created seven rebound opportunities to Vancouver's six.
The turning point came midway through the third: Cutter Gauthier's tip-in from the doorstep, a microcosm of Anaheim's problem. They generated the opportunity, but couldn't reliably finish when it mattered most.
This was a game where the underdog won not by stealing it, but by playing smarter hockey — tighter shot quality, clinical conversion, and a goalie who played the moments when they counted. The Ducks had the volume. The Canucks had the form.
