Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater

Breakdown · ANA at CBJ

Blue Jackets edge the Ducks in overtime

Final / OTTue, Dec 16

ANAAnaheim Ducks3 CBJColumbus Blue Jackets4

The verdict · stolen

The Blue Jackets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.30–2.79 and won anyway.

ANA 3 · CBJ 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:37 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 generated superior expected goals—3.30 to Columbus's 2.79—yet lost 4-3 in overtime. Anaheim's offense positioned shots better than the scoreline suggests, but specific execution matters more than volume.

Columbus held 51% of shot attempts despite the xG gap. High-danger chances favored Anaheim 7-3. This indicated Columbus's shots came from lower-danger locations.

Goaltending was the critical gap. V. Husso allowed 1.21 goals above his expected save rate, placing Anaheim in deficit. J. Greaves was solid at 0.889, making the stops that mattered.

Both teams scored 3 goals off the rush—Columbus from 28 chances, Anaheim from 22. The rush offset the underlying metrics; Columbus won the execution battle elsewhere. Adam Fantilli's snap shot from the high slot at 03:32 of overtime decided it.

Z. Werenski anchored Columbus with 2 goals and 1 assist in 29:31. M. Granlund contributed equally for Anaheim with 1 goal and 1 assist.

Anaheim's underlying play favored them. Columbus's better goaltending and timely execution overrode it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Dec 16

ANA

CBJ

Blue Jackets edge the Ducks in overtime

Chances 3.3 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

ANA

3.30

CBJ

2.79

54% of the chances46%

The board read ANA 3, CBJ 4. The chances read ANA 3.3, CBJ 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

CBJ

+1.2

goals above expected

CBJ2.79 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

ANA3.30 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 08:21CBJZ. Werenski0–1
P2 03:35ANAR. Strome1–1
P2 03:59CBJZ. Werenski1–2
P2 04:18CBJB. Jenner1–3
P2 05:29ANAM. Granlund2–3
P3 16:44ANAJ. LaCombe3–3
OT 03:32CBJA. Fantilli3–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

ANA

40 shots

Final

76 shots

CBJ

36 shots

ANA CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

ANACBJ

1 / 7

1.65 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.81 xG

2 / 11

1.16 xG

Medium

3 / 14

1.41 xG

0 / 42

0.50 xG

Low

1 / 41

0.58 xG

High-danger looks: ANA 1 of 7, CBJ 0 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

J. Greaves

+0.3

CBJ · 24/27

D-

V. Husso

−1.2

ANA · 24/28

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets edge the Ducks in overtime

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 10–6

08:21CBJZ. Werenski(B. Jenner, E. Chinakhov)0–1

2ndshots 9–10

03:35ANAR. Strome(R. Poehling, I. Moore)1–1
03:59CBJZ. Werenski(B. Gaunce, K. Johnson)1–2
04:18CBJB. Jenner(I. Provorov)1–3
05:29ANAM. Granlund(F. Vatrano)2–3

3rdshots 8–9

16:44ANAJ. LaCombe(R. Poehling, M. Granlund)3–3

OTshots 0–3

03:32CBJA. Fantilli(K. Johnson, Z. Werenski)3–4

score reads ANA–CBJ

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.79

CBJ chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.019

CBJ puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

49.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.30Expected goals2.79

ANA 54% of the chance quality

27Shots on goal28

7High-danger chances3

60All attempts (Corsi)58

Adjusted for score: ANA 54% · CBJ 46%

Faceoffs · CBJ won64%off36%neu67%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

CBJ0 / 3 · 0.81 xG

Medium dangermid-range

ANA2 / 11 · 1.16 xG

CBJ3 / 14 · 1.41 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

ANA0 / 42 · 0.50 xG

CBJ1 / 41 · 0.58 xG

CBJ went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.41 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

ANA

3 G · 3.30 xG · -0.3

CBJ

4 G · 2.79 xG · +1.2

012345

ANA finished -0.3 against expected, CBJ +1.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

ANA

WRIST2/22

SNAP1/9

SLAP0/3

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

BAT0/0

OTHER0/20

CBJ

WRIST2/14

SNAP1/13

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND1/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

BAT0/1

OTHER0/22

ANA

CBJ

Off the rush

3 G on 22

2.28 xG

3 G on 28

2.17 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.40 xG

1 G on 2

0.19 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 2-for-22, CBJ 2-for-14. ANA 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

V. Husso

ANA · 24/28 · .857

-1.2

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.8+0.8

Medium3/141.4-1.6

Low1/410.6-0.4

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. Greaves

CBJ · 24/27 · .889

+0.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.6+0.7

Medium2/111.2-0.8

Low0/420.5+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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

ANA

40 shots

Final

76 shots

CBJ

36 shots

ANA CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, CBJ 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

Z. Werenski

#8 · D · CBJ

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 29:31 on ice · +1

M. Granlund

#64 · C · ANA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:16 on ice · +2

B. Jenner

#38 · C · CBJ

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:55 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Dec 16

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:35 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 2.6-2.7 game with the Blue Jackets at 52% win probability. This is as close to a toss-up as sports betting gets. Both offenses are generating identical expected goals at 52%. Anaheim holds a marginal edge in Corsi% (52.0% to 51.0%).

The Ducks' PDO of 0.981 indicates they're running cold, a precursor to positive regression. Columbus's 1.003 PDO suggests they're running hot, but they're -13 on goal differential over their last ten games—a gap that tends to close.

Beckett Sennecke anchors the Ducks' offense at 1.03 xG/60 with 20 goals and 19 assists. He's converted 8 high-danger chances while shooting at 13.5%, a rate that reflects both skill and variance working in his favor. Cutter Gauthier edges him with 25 goals and 16 assists while operating at 0.99 xG/60. He's converted 2 high-danger chances at a 12.9% shooting rate, making him the more efficient scorer relative to opportunity.

The Blue Jackets counter with Boone Jenner, who has 11 goals and 21 assists at 0.98 xG/60 and a 9.6% shooting rate. He's converted only 2 high-danger chances, suggesting he's outperforming his underlying opportunities. Mathieu Olivier has 12 goals and 9 assists at 0.89 xG/60 with 1 high-danger conversion, maintaining a sharp 13.3% shooting rate.

Mason McTavish represents Anaheim's defensive vulnerability. Conor Garland mirrors that liability for Columbus. Both teams sit at 0% on high-danger and rebound-goal production, an oddity worth monitoring though likely explained by small sample size.

This is a genuine coin flip. The models agree, the rosters match, and variance will decide.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 52%

52%

CBJ

Model favorite

48%

52%

ANA50CBJ

CBJ by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.6–2.7 CBJ; 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 →CBJ

52.0%52.0%

52.0%51.0%

2.802.63

2.592.43

2.092.12

2.321.98

0.9811.003

CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.003) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

ANA

5-5-0

-4 GD · 3d rest

CBJ

2-5-3

-13 GD · 2d rest

0.981

ANA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

CBJ 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

The Blue Jackets are underwater at -13 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

L. Dostal

3 days rest.857 last start

Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CBJ

Expected in goal

J. Greaves

2 days rest.885 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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

CBJ

Boone Jenner11G 21A

0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh

Mathieu Olivier12G 9A

0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page