Chicago's 5–3 victory over Anaheim featured the underlying metrics leaning only slightly their way—expected goals 3.85–3.23—yet the Blackhawks scored 1.15 goals beyond expectation, transforming a marginal edge into decisive advantage.

The shot battle tilted to Chicago: just 41% of attempts but 54% of expected goals, signaling superior shot quality. High-danger chances went 6–4 in Chicago's favor. More tellingly, Chicago converted at 50% in the high-danger zone (3 of 6) and punished the rush at devastating efficiency—3 goals on 30 rush attempts.

Anaheim generated quality looks that the shot total masked: 0.055 xG per shot to Chicago's 0.082. T. Terry set up two chances despite Anaheim's inability to convert. The Ducks were lethal in their own right off the rush, scoring twice on 22 attempts. They crashed the net effectively, creating four rebound opportunities, though none found the back of the net.

The Blackhawks' power play was clinical: 2 goals on 8 shots, accumulating 0.94 expected goals in the man-advantage. S. Knight (23–26, 0.885 SV%) kept Anaheim at bay when it mattered. P. Mrazek (13–16, 0.812 SV%) performed above expectation at +0.62 goals, but it wasn't enough to overcome Chicago's finishing prowess and net-front dominance.

C. Bedard led the way with 2 goals and 2 assists in 20:14, capitalizing on his high-danger opportunities. C. Gauthier (1G, 1A in 18:33) kept Anaheim dangerous to the end.

The model projects a 2.9–2.5 Anaheim win with 56% win probability for the Ducks. That lean rests on superior process, not luck—though luck plays a role.

Anaheim dominates 5v5 play. The Ducks carry 52.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi, driving territorial tilt throughout. Chicago manages only 42.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi, a gap that reflects genuine control, not noise.

PDO—a measure of unsustainable shooting and goaltending luck—reveals where regression lives. Anaheim's 0.981 indicates the Ducks are running cold, due for positive bounce-back. Chicago's 0.996 cuts the opposite direction: unsustainable goaltending fortune that typically corrects downward. A. Soderblom on a back-to-back adds a monitoring layer.

Beckett Sennecke anchors Anaheim's offense: 1.03 xG per 60, 20 goals, 19 assists, 8 high-danger goals, 13.5% shooting. Cutter Gauthier mirrors the threat—0.99 xG/60, 25 goals, 16 assists, 2 high-danger marks, 12.9% shooting. Both convert dangerous chances at high rates.

Chicago's Tyler Bertuzzi generates 0.85 xG per 60 with 20 goals, 15 assists, and 7 high-danger goals, but his 18.0% shooting rate signals unsustainable performance. Connor Bedard (17 goals, 27 assists, 0.82 xG/60, 11.8% shooting) plays a facilitator's role—fewer dangerous looks, more playmaking.

Defensively, Mason McTavish represents a liability for Anaheim, while Anton Frondell does the same for Chicago. Both units face offensive depth they'll struggle to contain.

The read: Anaheim's advantage spans process, luck, and personnel. The Ducks control possession, generate better chances, and face goaltending regression in their favor. Chicago's metrics—both underlying and positional—lag. The model's 2.9–2.5 projection captures a game tilted decisively toward Anaheim.