Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
← Fri, Nov 28 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at ANA

Ducks edge the Kings in a shootout

Final / OTFri, Nov 28
LAKLos Angeles Kings4ANAAnaheim Ducks5
The verdict · earned

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

LAK 4 · ANA 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:00 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

The Ducks beat the Kings 5-4 in a shootout, their control of play translating into the final result. Anaheim held 57% of 5v5 expected goals (4.02–2.97), won the shot attempt battle 53% (31–27), and generated 6 high-danger chances to Los Angeles's 3.

Both teams scored above their expected totals. The Ducks generated 4.02 xG but scored 5 (overperforming by 0.98); the Kings generated 2.97 xG but scored 4 (overperforming by 1.03). The margin came from special teams.

Anaheim's power play was clinical: 2 goals on 8 shots with just 0.75 xG. Los Angeles could not replicate this efficiency, and the power-play gap decided the game.

Five-on-five play stayed balanced. Anaheim converted 4 of 28 rush chances; the Kings answered with 3 of 24. Rebound opportunities split evenly: the Ducks created 4 second chances and converted none, while Los Angeles went 1-for-5. The game was won on special teams, not even-strength play.

D. Kuemper (LAK) made 27 saves on 31 shots (0.871 SV%). V. Husso (ANA) stopped 23 of 27 (0.852 SV%), allowing 1.03 more goals than expected. Yet Anaheim's defense limited Los Angeles to 27 shot attempts, light work that offset Husso's underperformance.

Mason McTavish finished it in the shootout with a wrist shot from the doorstep.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Nov 28
LAK
4
ANA
5

Ducks edge the Kings in a shootout

Chances 3.0 – 4.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
2.97
ANA
4.02
43% of the chances57%

The board read LAK 4, ANA 5. The chances read LAK 3.0, ANA 4.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
+1.0
goals above expected
ANA4.02 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK2.97 expected · 4 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 17:48LAKA. Laferriere1–0
  2. P2 09:00ANAC. KreiderPP1–1
  3. P2 10:03LAKK. Fiala2–1
  4. P2 11:02ANAO. Zellweger2–2
  5. P3 03:23LAKA. Turcotte3–2
  6. P3 06:53LAKJ. Edmundson4–2
  7. P3 10:42ANAP. Mintyukov4–3
+3 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
41 shots
4
Final
92 shots
ANA
51 shots
6
LAK attackANA attack
LAK ANA Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

41
shots · 4 in
51
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKANA
0 / 3
0.61 xG
High danger
2 / 6
1.58 xG
3 / 16
1.93 xG
Medium
2 / 18
1.87 xG
1 / 41
0.43 xG
Low
0 / 52
0.57 xG

The Kings went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
D. Kuemper
+0.0
LAK · 27/31
D-
V. Husso
−1.0
ANA · 23/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks edge the Kings in a shootout

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 9–7
  1. 17:48LAKA. Laferriere(T. Moore, B. Dumoulin)1–0
2ndshots 5–11
  1. 09:00ANAC. Kreiderpower play(T. Terry, L. Carlsson)1–1
  2. 10:03LAKK. Fiala(Q. Byfield, B. Clarke)2–1
  3. 11:02ANAO. Zellweger(A. Killorn, L. Carlsson)2–2
3rdshots 11–9
  1. 03:23LAKA. Turcotte(B. Clarke, B. Dumoulin)3–2
  2. 06:53LAKJ. Edmundson(M. Anderson, T. Moore)4–2
  3. 10:42ANAP. Mintyukov(B. Sennecke, M. McTavish)4–3
  4. 18:29ANAL. Carlssonpower play(J. LaCombe, M. McTavish)4–4
OTshots 2–4no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00ANAT. Terrypower play4–4
    2. 00:00ANAM. McTavishpower play4–4

    score reads LAK–ANA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.02
    ANA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.0
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    0.986
    ANA puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    55.9%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.97Expected goals4.02
    ANA 57% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal31
    3High-danger chances6
    60All attempts (Corsi)76
    Adjusted for score: LAK 42% · ANA 58%
    Faceoffs · ANA won64%off39%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    LAK0 / 3 · 0.61 xG
    ANA2 / 6 · 1.58 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    LAK3 / 16 · 1.93 xG
    ANA2 / 18 · 1.87 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    LAK1 / 41 · 0.43 xG
    ANA0 / 52 · 0.57 xG

    LAK went 3-for-16 from medium danger on 1.93 expected goals — 1.1 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    LAK
    4 G · 2.97 xG · +1.0
    ANA
    5 G · 4.02 xG · +1.0
    0123456

    LAK finished +1.0 against expected, ANA +1.0.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    LAK
    SNAP1/20
    WRIST0/6
    TIP IN2/5
    SLAP1/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    BAT0/3
    OTHER0/21
    ANA
    SNAP2/23
    WRIST1/10
    TIP IN1/7
    SLAP0/6
    BACKHAND0/2
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/28
    LAK
    ANA
    Off the rush
    3 G on 24
    2.18 xG
    4 G on 28
    3.23 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 5
    0.64 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.27 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-20, ANA 2-for-23. ANA 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
    D. Kuemper
    LAK · 27/31 · .871
    +0.0
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/61.6-0.4
    Medium2/181.9-0.1
    Low0/520.6+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

    V. Husso
    ANA · 23/27 · .852
    -1.0
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.6+0.6
    Medium3/161.9-1.1
    Low1/410.4-0.6

    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

    92 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    LAK
    41 shots
    4
    Final
    92 shots
    ANA
    51 shots
    6
    LAK attackANA attack
    LAK ANA Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK 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
    L. Carlsson
    #91 · C · ANA
    1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 24:06 on ice · +1
    B. Dumoulin
    #2 · D · LAK
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 25:02 on ice · +2
    B. Clarke
    #92 · D · LAK
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:23 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Nov 28
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:58 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 has this nearly unsolvable: LAK projects 2.5–2.6 goals, the Ducks 52% win probability. You're looking at a true pick'em, the kind of game where coin flips actually make sense.

    The underlying talent is indistinguishable. Both teams own 52.0% xG% and 52.0% Corsi%, identical control of play and shot quality. The Ducks' 0.981 PDO signals they're running cold, converting at a below-average rate—the kind of regression candidate that gets dangerous when luck swings back. The Kings' 1.002 PDO is neutral. It's a wash.

    Rest favors Anaheim. The Ducks arrive on one day off; Los Angeles on three. That's a material edge—not a game-changer, but worth tracking if tempo matters.

    P. Mrazek's back-to-back status clouds Anaheim's crease. If the Ducks ride their starter into fatigue, it's an exploitable weakness. If they pivot to the backup, you're buying into an unknown quantity. Either way, Los Angeles should hunt the crease.

    Individual matchups matter when talent pools are this aligned. Alex Laferriere anchors Los Angeles at 0.87 xG per 60 and a 9.9% shooting percentage for 16 goals. Jared Wright provides depth. Beckett Sennecke runs hotter: 1.03 xG per 60, 13.5% shooting, 20 goals with 8 from high-danger. Cutter Gauthier owns slightly more volume—25 goals on 0.99 xG per 60 and 12.9% shooting—but just 2 high-danger tallies suggest his edge comes from opportunity and efficiency, not elite chance quality.

    Neither team scores from high-danger areas. Both sit at 0% on hard-area goal rate and rebound goals, so playmaking and sustained possession matter more than chance quality. Adrian Kempe is a defensive liability for the Kings; Mason McTavish the same for Anaheim. Whoever exploits those gaps first probably wins.

    This is genuinely indecipherable. The metrics align, the talent pools overlap, and the rest advantage barely tilts the scales. You could flip a coin and sleep well either way.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    ANA 52%
    52%
    ANA
    Model favorite
    48%
    52%
    LAK50ANA

    ANA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.6 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
    LAK← edge
    edge →ANA
    52.0%52.0%
    52.0%52.0%
    2.422.80
    2.202.59
    1.852.09
    1.712.32
    1.0020.981

    ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.981) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    LAK
    6-2-2
    +5 GD · 3d rest
    ANA
    5-5-0
    -3 GD · 1d rest
    1.002
    LAK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.981
    ANA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • P. Mrazek 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 Kings have 2 more days of rest.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    3 days rest.964 last start
    Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    ANA
    Expected in goal
    P. Mrazek
    back-to-back.852 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
    LAK
    Alex Laferriere16G 18A
    0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
    Jared Wright0G 4A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% 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