Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater
Breakdown · ANA at NJD

J. Allen stands tall as the Devils edge the Ducks

The verdict · earned

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

ANA 1 · NJD 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:08 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

J. Allen, not the Devils' dominance, won this game. The goalie saved 3.05 goals above expected in a 4-1 victory over Anaheim, bailing out a team that underperformed its own expected goals by 1.39. The Ducks, meanwhile, left 3.05 goals on the ice — a damning indictment of their finish despite generating quality opportunities.

New Jersey's 57–43 expected-goals edge (5.39–4.05) looked comfortable on paper. In practice, Allen had to work. The Devils held just 42% of shot attempts (22–31), a clip that suggests Anaheim fought harder for possession than the final score implies. But New Jersey's chances carried more weight — 0.088 expected goals per shot versus Anaheim's 0.065. Quantity favored the Ducks. Quality did not.

High-danger chances told the same story: 9–5 to New Jersey. Anaheim, for all its pressure, converted zero of its five. L. Dostal stopped 2.4 goals above expected — a strong performance that would usually carry a team to at least a point. But the Devils were lethal: 3 goals on 28 rush chances, a conversion rate that punished Anaheim's zone entries.

New Jersey's depth showed. C. White and O. Palat each posted two assists, as did J. Lammikko. Connor Brown's backhander from the doorstep (third period, 18:00) embodied the game: a high-danger chance converted when it mattered.

Dostal stole as much as Allen did, statistically. But Allen's 0.968 save percentage and +3.05 mark above expected didn't just match his team's output; it exceeded it. The Devils won because they were better, yes. They won decisively because their goalie was better still.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 13
ANA
1
NJD
4

J. Allen stands tall as the Devils edge the Ducks

Chances 4.0 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Devils earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
4.05
NJD
5.39
43% of the chances57%

The board read ANA 1, NJD 4. The chances read ANA 4.0, NJD 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NJD
−1.4
goals above expected
NJD5.39 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA4.05 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks left 3.0 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 13:18ANAT. Terry1–0
  2. P1 16:09NJDS. Noesen1–1
  3. P2 05:52NJDP. Cotter1–2
  4. P2 17:04NJDC. Glass1–3
  5. P3 18:00NJDC. BrownEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
48 shots
1
Final
88 shots
NJD
40 shots
4
ANA attackNJD attack
ANA NJD Goal
48
shots · 1 in
40
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANANJD
0 / 5
1.20 xG
High danger
2 / 9
3.44 xG
1 / 18
2.22 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.49 xG
0 / 39
0.63 xG
Low
1 / 38
0.46 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Allen
+3.0
NJD · 30/31
A
L. Dostal
+2.4
ANA · 18/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

J. Allen stands tall as the Devils edge 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 6–9
  1. 13:18ANAT. Terry(L. Carlsson)1–0
  2. 16:09NJDS. Noesen(J. Lammikko, J. Bratt)1–1
2ndshots 11–8
  1. 05:52NJDP. Cotter(J. Lammikko, C. White)1–2
  2. 17:04NJDC. Glass(O. Palat, C. White)1–3
3rdshots 14–5
  1. 18:00NJDC. Brownempty net(O. Palat)1–4

score reads ANA–NJD

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.39
NJD chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.4
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.049
NJD puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
49.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.05Expected goals5.39
NJD 57% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal22
5High-danger chances9
62All attempts (Corsi)61
Adjusted for score: ANA 54% · NJD 46%
Faceoffs · NJD won42%off80%neu63%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA0 / 5 · 1.20 xG
NJD2 / 9 · 3.44 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA1 / 18 · 2.22 xG
NJD1 / 14 · 1.49 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 39 · 0.63 xG
NJD1 / 38 · 0.46 xG

NJD went 2-for-9 from high danger on 3.44 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
1 G · 4.05 xG · -3.0
NJD
4 G · 5.39 xG · -1.4
0123456

ANA finished -3.0 against expected, NJD -1.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST0/24
SNAP1/12
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/14
NJD
WRIST2/10
SNAP1/14
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND1/5
TIP IN0/3
DEFLECTED0/3
BAT0/0
OTHER0/21
ANA
NJD
Off the rush
1 G on 25
2.47 xG
3 G on 28
3.79 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.52 xG
0 G on 5
0.72 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-24, NJD 2-for-10. NJD 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
L. Dostal
ANA · 18/21 · .857
+2.4
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/93.4+1.4
Medium1/141.5+0.5
Low1/380.5-0.5

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. Allen
NJD · 30/31 · .968
+3.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.2+1.2
Medium1/182.2+1.2
Low0/390.6+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
48 shots
1
Final
88 shots
NJD
40 shots
4
ANA attackNJD attack
ANA NJD Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, NJD 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. White
#45 · D · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 14:38 on ice · +2
O. Palat
#18 · L · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 14:28 on ice · +1
J. Lammikko
#83 · C · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 13:38 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 13
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:06 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 2.6 goals for Anaheim, 2.6 for New Jersey, with the Devils at 50% win probability. This is an even matchup.

Anaheim should own the underlying play. The Ducks carry 52.0% xG and 52.0% Corsi, a genuine edge in shot creation and puck recovery. New Jersey counters with 50.0% xG and 51.0% Corsi—tight enough that possession could swing either way.

Both teams, however, are running cold. Anaheim's PDO is 0.981, New Jersey's 0.971. Both are scoring below their expected rate and both are due for positive regression. When that correction hits, Anaheim's xG advantage evaporates. The model calls it even because the regression risk is real and symmetrical.

The offensive battle will determine the winner. Beckett Sennecke produces 1.03 xG/60 with 20 goals and 19 assists at 13.5% shooting—a conversion rate that may not hold. Timo Meier generates 1.08 xG/60 with 13 goals and 15 assists but converts at just 6.7%, a floor that suggests room for positive variance. Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 25G 16A) anchors Anaheim's secondary scoring. Jack Hughes (0.88 xG/60, 18G 17A) is New Jersey's third option, shooting 11.5%.

The critical weakness both teams share: neither converts hard-chance or rebound goals. Both sit at 0% in those categories. In a tight game, that becomes the deciding factor. Whoever breaks through on a secondary chance owns the result.

Defensively, each team carries an exposed link. Mason McTavish is Anaheim's liability; Johnathan Kovacevic bleeds for New Jersey. The team that forces their opponent to exploit that weakness gains material advantage.

With matching offensive depth, parallel regression risk, and symmetric defensive exposure, the 50-50 call is defensible. Anaheim's underlying metrics favor the Ducks, but the PDO reversion risk neutralizes that edge entirely. In a game this even, execution on a single secondary chance or defensive lapse decides it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NJD 50%
50%
NJD
Model favorite
50%
50%
ANA50NJD

NJD by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.6–2.6 NJD; 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 →NJD
52.0%50.0%
52.0%51.0%
2.802.45
2.592.50
2.091.66
2.322.23
0.9810.971

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.971) says ANA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
ANA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
NJD
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.971
NJD PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.
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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next