Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
Breakdown · ANA at CHI

Blackhawks hold off the Ducks

The verdict · earned

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

ANA 3 · CHI 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:22 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

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 breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 30
ANA
3
CHI
5

Blackhawks hold off the Ducks

Chances 3.2 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.23
CHI
3.85
46% of the chances54%

The board read ANA 3, CHI 5. The chances read ANA 3.2, CHI 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
+1.1
goals above expected
CHI3.85 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.23 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
  1. P1 00:15ANAC. Gauthier1–0
  2. P1 00:47ANAO. Zellweger2–0
  3. P1 10:25ANAC. Kreider3–0
  4. P1 17:57CHIT. BertuzziPP3–1
  5. P2 06:43CHIR. Greene3–2
  6. P2 12:34CHIC. DachPP3–3
  7. P3 09:55CHIC. Bedard3–4
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
40 shots
3
Final
78 shots
CHI
38 shots
5
ANA attackCHI attack
ANA CHI Goal
40
shots · 3 in
38
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANACHI
0 / 4
1.19 xG
High danger
3 / 6
1.78 xG
3 / 12
1.39 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.47 xG
0 / 43
0.65 xG
Low
0 / 28
0.60 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
V. Husso
+2.9
ANA · 0/1
B+
P. Mrazek
+0.8
ANA · 13/16
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blackhawks hold off the Ducks

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 10–5
  1. 00:15ANAC. Gauthier(T. Terry, L. Carlsson)1–0
  2. 00:47ANAO. Zellweger(T. Terry, C. Gauthier)2–0
  3. 10:25ANAC. Kreider(B. Sennecke, M. McTavish)3–0
  4. 17:57CHIT. Bertuzzipower play(F. Nazar, C. Bedard)3–1
2ndshots 7–9
  1. 06:43CHIR. Greene(C. Bedard, A. Burakovsky)3–2
  2. 12:34CHIC. Dachpower play(T. Teravainen, A. Levshunov)3–3
3rdshots 9–4
  1. 09:55CHIC. Bedard3–4
  2. 18:05CHIC. Bedardempty net3–5

score reads ANA–CHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.85
CHI chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.056
CHI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.23Expected goals3.85
CHI 54% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal18
4High-danger chances6
59All attempts (Corsi)47
Adjusted for score: ANA 53% · CHI 47%
Faceoffs · CHI won38%off45%neu62%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA0 / 4 · 1.19 xG
CHI3 / 6 · 1.78 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA3 / 12 · 1.39 xG
CHI2 / 13 · 1.47 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 43 · 0.65 xG
CHI0 / 28 · 0.60 xG

ANA went 3-for-12 from medium danger on 1.39 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
3 G · 3.23 xG · -0.2
CHI
5 G · 3.85 xG · +1.1
0123456

ANA finished -0.2 against expected, CHI +1.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST0/21
SNAP2/6
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/4
DEFLECTED1/2
BACKHAND0/2
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/19
CHI
WRIST2/21
SNAP2/4
TIP IN1/6
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
BACKHAND0/1
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/9
ANA
CHI
Off the rush
2 G on 22
2.11 xG
3 G on 30
2.72 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.66 xG
0 G on 1
0.05 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-21, CHI 2-for-21. CHI 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
V. Husso
ANA · 0/1 · .000
+2.9
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/61.8-1.2
Medium2/131.5-0.5
Low0/280.6+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 · 13/16 · .812
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/61.8-1.2
Medium2/131.5-0.5
Low0/280.6+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

S. Knight
CHI · 23/26 · .885
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.2+1.2
Medium3/121.4-1.6
Low0/430.7+0.7

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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
40 shots
3
Final
78 shots
CHI
38 shots
5
ANA attackCHI attack
ANA CHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, CHI 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
C. Bedard
#98 · C · CHI
2 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 20:14 on ice · +2
T. Terry
#19 · R · ANA
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:31 on ice · +1
C. Gauthier
#61 · L · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 8 SOG · 18:33 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Nov 30
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:21 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 2.9–2.5 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.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 56%
56%
ANA
Model favorite
56%
44%
ANA50CHI

ANA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score ANA 2.9–2.5 CHI; 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
ANA← edge
edge →CHI
52.0%42.0%
52.0%46.0%
2.802.17
2.592.94
2.091.84
2.322.41
0.9810.996

ANA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.996) says CHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
ANA
5-5-0
-3 GD · 2d rest
CHI
4-4-2
+1 GD · 1d rest
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.996
CHI 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 42.0%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Ducks own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • A. Soderblom 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
ANA
Expected in goal
V. Husso
2 days rest.852 last start
Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI
Expected in goal
A. Soderblom
back-to-back.862 last start
Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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
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
CHI
Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
Connor Bedard17G 27A
0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next