Anaheim's 7–1 victory masked an even more complete dominance: the Ducks controlled 86% of expected goals (6.41–1.08), a gulf that actual goals barely captured.

The Blackhawks never got the quality looks their shot total suggested. They fired 20 shots but generated just 1.08 expected goals—a rate of 0.032 xG per shot. Anaheim, meanwhile, rifled 53 shots at a devastating 0.074 xG per shot, tripling Chicago's efficiency. That chasm—quality over quantity—is why goals skewed so extreme.

High-danger chances told an even starker story: 12–0. The Ducks created chances the Blackhawks couldn't manufacture. They were lethal rushing, converting six goals from 45 rush attempts. The power play added another layer of dominance, scoring twice on 15 shots with 1.78 expected goals behind it.

A. Soderblom (CHI) faced an impossible task, posting a 0.868 save percentage that still underperformed expectations by 0.59 goals—a goalie surrendering inevitable outcomes. V. Husso (ANA) needed only to stay clean, stopping 19 of 20 at 0.950 SV%.

The Ducks buried three low-danger goals that any goaltender should stop, then added four more from the premium areas. That's not luck; that's execution against a defense giving up second-chance opportunities. Anaheim crashed the net with purpose, converting one of eight rebound chances but creating the chaos that forces mistakes.

Chicago generated pockets of danger—their limited offensive looks were higher-quality than their volume suggested—but it didn't matter. When one team controls the game this decisively, marginal performances don't survive.

The model projects a 2.4–3.0 Chicago loss, pricing Anaheim at 60% win probability. The edge is genuine: the Ducks control territory and generate scoring chances at a scale that compounds over a full game.

Anaheim owns 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 against Chicago's 42.0%. Their Corsi rate of 52.0% confirms it's not a fluke—they will dictate play. Chicago will be chasing for long stretches, which is unsustainable against a team with Anaheim's offensive depth.

The wrinkle: Anaheim's PDO of 0.981 means they're finishing chances below league average. The model assumes positive regression here. Chicago's PDO of 0.996 is closer to neutral, so the convergence favors the Ducks even if actual shot quality merely tracks the model's estimates.

V. Husso on a back-to-back is worth monitoring. Whether he starts or a backup gets the call, Chicago's depth in net will face volume.

Beckett Sennecke leads Anaheim's attack at 1.03 xG/60 with 20 goals and 8 high-danger tallies. Cutter Gauthier (25G, 0.99 xG/60) is the secondary engine—a high-volume scorer who amplifies regression when the team is running cold. For Chicago, Connor Bedard generates at 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals and 27 assists, but his 11.8% shooting rate inflates those numbers; expect regression the other way. Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 0.85 xG/60, 18.0% shooting) is the leverage point—elevated finish rate that Chicago needs to hold.

The model's lean on Anaheim is sound, but the Ducks must convert at normalized rates. If regression hits as the model assumes, this becomes a rout.