Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
Breakdown · ANA at STL

Ducks pull away from the Blues

The verdict · stolen

The Ducks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.01–3.39 and won anyway.

ANA 4 · STL 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:34 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 underlying numbers favored St. Louis. The Blues posted 3.39 expected goals versus Anaheim's 3.01—a 53% share. Anaheim won 4-1. Goaltending inverted the result.

V. Husso was exceptional for Anaheim: 21 of 22 saves (0.955 save percentage, +2.39 vs expected). J. Binnington imploded for St. Louis—3 of 5 shots (0.600 save percentage, -1.40 vs expected). J. Hofer, in relief (19 of 20, 0.950 save percentage, +1.41 vs expected), couldn't salvage the game.

Anaheim made inefficiency count. The Ducks scored two low-danger goals and two more off the rush on 23 chances. St. Louis underperformed its expected goals by 2.39, failing to convert despite a 6-5 edge in high-danger looks.

P. Mintyukov drove Anaheim's attack: 1G, 1A in 20:42. L. Carlsson matched him: 1G, 1A in 17:39. R. Thomas posted 1A in 20:36 for St. Louis.

The Blues played better hockey. Binnington played worse, and that mattered more.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 1
ANA
4
STL
1

Ducks pull away from the Blues

Chances 3.0 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.01
STL
3.39
47% of the chances53%

The board read ANA 4, STL 1. The chances read ANA 3.0, STL 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
+1.0
goals above expected
ANA3.01 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
STL3.39 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blues left 2.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 06:33ANAM. McTavish1–0
  2. P1 06:53STLJ. Kyrou1–1
  3. P1 10:24ANAP. Mintyukov2–1
  4. P3 05:58ANAL. Carlsson3–1
  5. P3 17:23ANAC. KreiderEN4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
40 shots
4
Final
76 shots
STL
36 shots
1
ANA attackSTL attack
ANA STL Goal
40
shots · 4 in
36
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANASTL
1 / 5
1.38 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.30 xG
1 / 11
1.12 xG
Medium
0 / 13
1.54 xG
2 / 35
0.51 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.54 xG

High-danger looks: ANA 1 of 5, STL 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
V. Husso
+2.4
ANA · 21/22
A
J. Hofer
+2.0
STL · 19/20
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks pull away from the Blues

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 10–9
  1. 06:33ANAM. McTavish(B. Sennecke)1–0
  2. 06:53STLJ. Kyrou(R. Thomas, J. Neighbours)1–1
  3. 10:24ANAP. Mintyukov(I. Moore)2–1
2ndshots 10–4no goals
    3rdshots 6–9
    1. 05:58ANAL. Carlsson(R. Gudas, P. Mintyukov)3–1
    2. 17:23ANAC. Kreiderempty net(L. Carlsson)4–1

    score reads ANA–STL

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.01
    ANA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.0
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.061
    ANA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    46.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.01Expected goals3.39
    STL 53% of the chance quality
    26Shots on goal22
    5High-danger chances6
    51All attempts (Corsi)58
    Adjusted for score: ANA 43% · STL 57%
    Faceoffs · STL won71%off69%neu57%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    ANA1 / 5 · 1.38 xG
    STL1 / 6 · 1.30 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    ANA1 / 11 · 1.12 xG
    STL0 / 13 · 1.54 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    ANA2 / 35 · 0.51 xG
    STL0 / 39 · 0.54 xG

    STL went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.54 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    ANA
    4 G · 3.01 xG · +1.0
    STL
    1 G · 3.39 xG · -2.4
    012345

    ANA finished +1.0 against expected, STL -2.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    ANA
    WRIST2/22
    TIP IN1/9
    SLAP0/4
    SNAP1/1
    BACKHAND0/4
    BAT0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/11
    STL
    WRIST0/13
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP0/7
    SNAP1/6
    BACKHAND0/2
    BAT0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/22
    ANA
    STL
    Off the rush
    2 G on 23
    1.77 xG
    1 G on 24
    2.55 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.19 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.19 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 2-for-22, STL 0-for-13. ANA 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
    V. Husso
    ANA · 21/22 · .955
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.3+0.3
    Medium0/131.5+1.5
    Low0/390.5+0.5

    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

    J. Hofer
    STL · 19/20 · .950
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.4+0.4
    Medium1/111.1+0.1
    Low2/350.5-1.5

    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

    J. Binnington
    STL · 3/5 · .600
    +1.0
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.4+0.4
    Medium1/111.1+0.1
    Low2/350.5-1.5

    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

    76 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    ANA
    40 shots
    4
    Final
    76 shots
    STL
    36 shots
    1
    ANA attackSTL attack
    ANA STL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, STL 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
    P. Mintyukov
    #98 · D · ANA
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:42 on ice · +2
    L. Carlsson
    #91 · C · ANA
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:39 on ice · +1
    R. Thomas
    #18 · C · STL
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:36 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Dec 1
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:33 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 Ducks at 50% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. Anaheim owns the underlying play but is running cold, while St. Louis is outperforming its metrics. Both starters face fatigue, and whoever adjusts faster wins a toss-up.

    Anaheim is underwater at −8 goal differential over their last 10 games. That's the narrative drag. But the 5v5 picture tells a different story: the Ducks hold 52.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi, meaning they're controlling territory and generating high-quality chances. St. Louis sits at 49.0% and 48.0%, respectively—territorial disadvantage all night. This is a team that's been outplayed most evenings.

    The divergence between play and results is the key edge. Anaheim's PDO of 0.981 signals they're underperforming their shot metrics; regression toward 1.000 is likely. St. Louis, at 1.000 exactly, is running hot—unsustainably so. In a toss-up game, the team due for positive variance has the superior case. The Ducks' current cold streak, combined with superior underlying metrics, makes them the sharper play.

    Goaltending is the wild card. Both J. Hofer and P. Mrazek are on back-to-backs—a significant factor in a tight game. Either could see a backup start, or both could skate fatigued. Anaheim's offense will center on Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20 goals, 8 high-danger goals, 13.5% shooting) and Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 25 goals, 2 high-danger goals, 12.9% shooting). Gauthier's hot hand—25 goals on elite volume—is the momentum play. St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15 goals, 2 high-danger goals, 11.9% shooting) and Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, 1 high-danger goal, 10.8% shooting), who generate decent looks but haven't converted at Gauthier's rate.

    Defensively, Anaheim has a weak link in Mason McTavish. St. Louis's defensive vulnerability runs through Snuggerud. Both teams are anemic in high-danger goal rate and rebound conversion—a wash.

    The Ducks' territorial edge and regression advantage give them the slightly better case if Mrazek shows fatigue. That's your angle here—the sharper team is undervalued in a game that could go either way.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    ANA 50%
    50%
    ANA
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    ANA50STL

    ANA by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.6–2.6 STL; 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 →STL
    52.0%49.0%
    52.0%48.0%
    2.802.34
    2.592.40
    2.092.00
    2.322.12
    0.9811.000

    ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.000) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    ANA
    4-6-0
    -8 GD · 1d rest
    STL
    4-2-4
    -4 GD · 1d rest
    0.981
    ANA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.000
    STL 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 49.0%.
    • 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 49.0%.
    • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • J. Hofer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • P. Mrazek is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Ducks are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
    • 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
    P. Mrazek
    back-to-back.813 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.

    STL
    Expected in goal
    J. Hofer
    back-to-back1.000 last start
    Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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
    STL
    Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
    0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
    Dylan Holloway13G 24A
    0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next