Motion-blurred skater in a New York Islanders sweater
Breakdown · ANA at NYI

Islanders pull away from the Ducks

The verdict · coin flip

The Islanders won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

ANA 2 · NYI 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:59 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

Expected goals split 4.24–4.20 favoring the Islanders; they won 5–2. That three-goal gap between underlying play and the scoreline tells the whole story: D. Rittich saved 2.2 goals above expected, V. Husso gave back 0.76, and a goaltending disparity became the 5–2 result.

The Islanders didn't dominate. They held 53% of shot attempts (37–33 on goal) with no quality advantage—xG suggested the teams were even. But D. Rittich was brilliant (0.939 SV%) while V. Husso struggled (0.865 SV%), and that gap was the game.

The power play is where the Islanders actually overexecuted. They scored twice on 14 shots (0.91 xG)—a conversion rate that tilted the late stages. At even strength, both teams matched each other ruthlessly: two goals on 35 rush chances apiece. In the high-danger zone, the Islanders proved efficient: 3 for 7 (43%) compared to Anaheim's one.

Ryan Pulock's snap shot from the wing (P3, 14:46) turned the third period into a formality.

A. Lee (2G, 2A in 16:23) and S. Holmstrom (1G, 2A in 16:38) built the Islanders' depth advantage. T. Terry (1G, 1A in 21:09) kept the Ducks alive when the xG ledger suggested they were already gone.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 11
ANA
2
NYI
5

Islanders pull away from the Ducks

Chances 4.2 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Islanders took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
4.20
NYI
4.24
50% of the chances50%

The board read ANA 2, NYI 5. The chances read ANA 4.2, NYI 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NYI
+0.8
goals above expected
NYI4.24 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA4.20 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks left 2.2 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 08:18NYIT. Mitchell0–1
  2. P1 10:16NYIA. LeePP0–2
  3. P1 19:06NYIA. LeePP0–3
  4. P2 05:34ANAL. Carlsson1–3
  5. P3 02:37ANAT. TerrySH2–3
  6. P3 06:06NYIS. Holmstrom2–4
  7. P3 14:46NYIR. Pulock2–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
59 shots
2
Final
112 shots
NYI
53 shots
5
ANA attackNYI attack
ANA NYI Goal
59
shots · 2 in
53
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANANYI
1 / 7
1.65 xG
High danger
3 / 7
1.63 xG
1 / 14
1.59 xG
Medium
1 / 18
1.93 xG
0 / 57
0.96 xG
Low
1 / 43
0.68 xG

The Islanders buried 3 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Rittich
+2.2
NYI · 31/33
D-
V. Husso
−0.8
ANA · 32/37
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Islanders pull away from 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 12–13
  1. 08:18NYIT. Mitchell(S. Holmstrom, S. Mayfield)0–1
  2. 10:16NYIA. Leepower play(T. DeAngelo, S. Holmstrom)0–2
  3. 19:06NYIA. Leepower play(T. DeAngelo, M. Barzal)0–3
2ndshots 10–15
  1. 05:34ANAL. Carlsson(T. Terry, O. Zellweger)1–3
3rdshots 11–9
  1. 02:37ANAT. Terryshorthanded(R. Poehling, J. LaCombe)2–3
  2. 06:06NYIS. Holmstrom(A. Lee, A. Pelech)2–4
  3. 14:46NYIR. Pulock(J. Pageau, A. Lee)2–5

score reads ANA–NYI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.24
NYI chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.048
NYI puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.20Expected goals4.24
NYI 50% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal37
7High-danger chances7
78All attempts (Corsi)68
Adjusted for score: ANA 60% · NYI 40%
Faceoffs · NYI won41%off55%neu64%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA1 / 7 · 1.65 xG
NYI3 / 7 · 1.63 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA1 / 14 · 1.59 xG
NYI1 / 18 · 1.93 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 57 · 0.96 xG
NYI1 / 43 · 0.68 xG

NYI went 3-for-7 from high danger on 1.63 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
2 G · 4.20 xG · -2.2
NYI
5 G · 4.24 xG · +0.8
0123456

ANA finished -2.2 against expected, NYI +0.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
SNAP1/22
WRIST1/20
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/19
NYI
SNAP1/31
WRIST1/3
BACKHAND2/8
TIP IN1/8
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/15
ANA
NYI
Off the rush
2 G on 35
2.78 xG
2 G on 35
2.66 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.25 xG
1 G on 3
0.40 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: ANA went 1-for-22, NYI 1-for-31. 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 · 32/37 · .865
-0.8
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/71.6-1.4
Medium1/181.9+0.9
Low1/430.7-0.3

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

D. Rittich
NYI · 31/33 · .939
+2.2
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.6+0.7
Medium1/141.6+0.6
Low0/571.0+1.0

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

112 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
59 shots
2
Final
112 shots
NYI
53 shots
5
ANA attackNYI attack
ANA NYI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, NYI 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
A. Lee
#27 · L · NYI
2 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:23 on ice · +1
S. Holmstrom
#10 · R · NYI
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:38 on ice · +2
T. Terry
#19 · R · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:09 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 11
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:57 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 this as functionally even—2.7 expected goals each, Anaheim at 51% win probability. You will not find a tighter game on the schedule.

Anaheim dominates the underlying play. The Ducks control 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5, drive shot volume at 52.0% Corsi, and are in position to win the possession war cleanly. Yet their PDO sits at 0.981—they're running cold on the conversion metric that separates excellent teams from lucky ones. That gap is fixable, which makes them a regression candidate in a game they should control.

The Islanders have played slightly above their talent level; a 0.993 PDO suggests they're due to normalize downward. They concede the territorial battle (48.0% xG, 49.0% Corsi) but haven't folded. The question is whether luck can hold in a game where they'll spend most of the night chasing.

The player advantage tilts Anaheim. Beckett Sennecke is operating at 1.03 xG per 60 minutes and has 20 goals on efficient 13.5% shooting, with 8 of those coming on high-danger chances. Cutter Gauthier adds 25 goals at 12.9% shooting, though his high-danger rate (2 goals) lags his opportunity level (0.99 xG/60). Anders Lee counters for New York with the highest shot-quality rate in the matchup—1.20 xG per 60—but just 9 goals suggest he too is due for regression. Bo Horvat (0.87 xG/60, 18 goals) plays within his chances and offers consistency, if not electricity.

The wrinkle: both starting goalies are on back-to-backs. I. Sorokin and V. Husso could be fatigued or replaced by backups, introducing uncertainty neither team wants. Fresh legs could swing momentum late if the game tightens.

Anaheim's edge in shot quality should matter. The PDO discount and the back-to-back variable are real, but so is the Ducks' territorial advantage. The model is right to call this close—this is the rare matchup where both teams have a legitimate path to victory, and luck in goaltending may be the decider.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 51%
51%
ANA
Model favorite
51%
49%
ANA50NYI

ANA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.7–2.7 NYI; 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 →NYI
52.0%48.0%
52.0%49.0%
2.802.48
2.592.69
2.091.78
2.321.94
0.9810.993

ANA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.993) says NYI 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
NYI
5-4-1
-2 GD · 1d rest
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
NYI 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 48.0%.
  • 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 48.0%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • I. Sorokin is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • 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.936 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.

NYI
Expected in goal
I. Sorokin
back-to-back.892 last start
Backup Ilya Sorokin · +25.3 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
NYI
Anders Lee9G 20A
1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh
Bo Horvat18G 10A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next