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

Ducks steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Ducks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.91–6.73 and won anyway.

ANA 4 · PIT 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:42 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 won 4-3 in a shootout despite losing the expected goals battle 6.73–2.91. Pittsburgh controlled 70% of the xG at 5v5, outshot Anaheim 47-29, and created more high-danger chances (13-5). The Penguins dictated the game. They lost anyway.

The dominance was a goaltending story. V. Husso (ANA) stopped 44 of 47 shots for a 0.936 save percentage, posting 3.73 goals above expected. A. Silovs (PIT) went 26–28 (0.929 SV%) and outperformed his xG by 0.91, but execution failed elsewhere. Pittsburgh underperformed its xG by 3.73 goals, wasting quality chances. Anaheim overperformed by 1.09, capitalizing on lower-percentage looks. What decided it: Husso's 92% SV% on 13 high-danger shots, and Anaheim's 2-of-5 finish (40%) on high-danger chances.

Leo Carlsson's backhander from the doorstep in the shootout proved decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Dec 9
ANA
4
PIT
3

Ducks steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

Chances 2.9 – 6.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
2.91
PIT
6.73
30% of the chances70%

The board read ANA 4, PIT 3. The chances read ANA 2.9, PIT 6.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
+1.1
goals above expected
ANA2.91 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT6.73 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 3.7 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 09:49PITN. Acciari0–1
  2. P2 05:19ANAJ. LaCombe1–1
  3. P2 14:10ANAT. Terry2–1
  4. P2 19:41PITT. Novak2–2
  5. P3 16:05PITA. ManthaPP2–3
  6. P3 19:59ANAB. Sennecke3–3
  7. SO 00:00ANAL. CarlssonPP3–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
40 shots
4
Final
115 shots
PIT
75 shots
3
ANA attackPIT attack
ANA PIT Goal
40
shots · 4 in
75
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANAPIT
2 / 5
1.02 xG
High danger
1 / 13
2.72 xG
0 / 12
1.36 xG
Medium
1 / 30
3.19 xG
1 / 35
0.53 xG
Low
1 / 47
0.81 xG

The Ducks buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
V. Husso
+3.7
ANA · 44/47
B+
A. Silovs
+0.9
PIT · 26/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks steal one from the Penguins against the run of play

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 8–16
  1. 09:49PITN. Acciari(C. Dewar)0–1
2ndshots 10–12
  1. 05:19ANAJ. LaCombe(B. Sennecke, C. Gauthier)1–1
  2. 14:10ANAT. Terry2–1
  3. 19:41PITT. Novak(E. Karlsson, R. Shea)2–2
3rdshots 9–12
  1. 16:05PITA. Manthapower play(S. Crosby, E. Karlsson)2–3
  2. 19:59ANAB. Sennecke3–3
OTshots 2–7no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00ANAL. Carlssonpower play3–3

    score reads ANA–PIT

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.91
    ANA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.024
    ANA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    36.6%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.91Expected goals6.73
    PIT 70% of the chance quality
    29Shots on goal47
    5High-danger chances13
    52All attempts (Corsi)90
    Adjusted for score: ANA 38% · PIT 63%
    Faceoffs · PIT won65%off36%neu43%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    ANA2 / 5 · 1.02 xG
    PIT1 / 13 · 2.72 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    ANA0 / 12 · 1.36 xG
    PIT1 / 30 · 3.19 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    ANA1 / 35 · 0.53 xG
    PIT1 / 47 · 0.81 xG

    PIT went 1-for-30 from medium danger on 3.19 expected goals — 2.2 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    ANA
    4 G · 2.91 xG · +1.1
    PIT
    3 G · 6.73 xG · -3.7
    012345678

    ANA finished +1.1 against expected, PIT -3.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    ANA
    WRIST2/26
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    SLAP0/2
    SNAP0/3
    OTHER1/15
    PIT
    WRIST3/40
    TIP IN0/13
    BACKHAND0/9
    SLAP0/6
    SNAP0/4
    OTHER0/18
    ANA
    PIT
    Off the rush
    2 G on 23
    2.09 xG
    2 G on 46
    4.13 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.21 xG
    1 G on 10
    1.40 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 2-for-26, PIT 3-for-40. 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 · 44/47 · .936
    +3.7
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/132.7+1.7
    Medium1/303.2+2.2
    Low1/470.8-0.2

    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

    A. Silovs
    PIT · 26/28 · .929
    +0.9
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/51.0-1.0
    Medium0/121.4+1.4
    Low1/350.5-0.5

    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

    115 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    ANA
    40 shots
    4
    Final
    115 shots
    PIT
    75 shots
    3
    ANA attackPIT attack
    ANA PIT Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, PIT 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
    E. Karlsson
    #65 · D · PIT
    0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 28:07 on ice · -2
    B. Sennecke
    #45 · R · ANA
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:56 on ice · +1
    J. LaCombe
    #2 · D · ANA
    1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 29:19 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Dec 9
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:53 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 models have already spoken: Anaheim and Pittsburgh are indistinguishable. The Penguins carry 51% win probability, with projections landing at 2.7 to 2.8 goals for each side. This is as close to a pick'em as modern analytics will give you.

    The underlying numbers confirm it. Anaheim has generated 52.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi at five-on-five—marginal edges barely worth mentioning. Pittsburgh counters with 51.0% xG% and 50.0% Corsi%, a statistical dead heat. Where the teams diverge is puck luck: Anaheim's 0.981 PDO means they've been running cold, while Pittsburgh's 1.012 indicates they've benefited from bounces. Expect some regression in the Ducks' direction.

    The goaltending situation adds an unknown. V. Husso is on a back-to-back; Pittsburgh may turn to a fresher arm instead of starting him.

    Anaheim's attack is anchored by Beckett Sennecke and Cutter Gauthier. Sennecke generates 1.03 expected goals per 60 minutes, armed with 20 goals, 19 assists, and 8 high-danger chances at a 13.5% shooting percentage—elite finishing on legitimate opportunities. Gauthier operates at similar volume (0.99 xG/60) but with more finish: 25 goals and 16 assists, though his high-danger conversion sits at just 2. His 12.9% shooting percentage shows he's capitalizing on routine chances.

    Pittsburgh's primary threat is Rickard Rakell (1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, 13 assists, 3 high-danger chances, 12.1% shooting). Filip Hallander would normally merit equal standing—he's posted 1.28 expected goals per 60—but he's undergoing further evaluation and testing after his conditioning loan recall and is likely out.

    Defensively, both teams have vulnerabilities. Mason McTavish is Anaheim's weak link on the backline; Caleb Jones carries similar liabilities for Pittsburgh. Whichever team limits its opponent's high-danger looks—and executes when it matters—will break the tie.

    The models agree: this is a coin flip. Recent form is your tiebreaker.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PIT 51%
    51%
    PIT
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    ANA50PIT

    PIT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.7–2.8 PIT; 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 →PIT
    52.0%51.0%
    52.0%50.0%
    2.802.66
    2.592.55
    2.092.45
    2.322.12
    0.9811.012

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    ANA
    6-4-0
    +2 GD · 1d rest
    PIT
    5-2-3
    -1 GD · 2d rest
    0.981
    ANA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.012
    PIT 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
    • V. Husso 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
    back-to-back.950 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.

    PIT
    Expected in goal
    T. Jarry
    2 days rest.913 last start
    Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 GSAx this season

    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
    PIT
    Filip Hallander0G 3A
    1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
    Rickard Rakell13G 13A
    1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next