Backcheck
Recap · ANA at CBJ

Blue Jackets edge the Ducks in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 11, 8:37 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
ANA
Anaheim Ducks
3
Home
CBJ
Columbus Blue Jackets
4
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.30Expected goals2.79
54% share for the better side
27Shot attempts (SOG)28
7High-danger chances3
60Corsi (all attempts)58
Score-adjusted: 54% / 46%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
V. HussoANA
-1.2
J. GreavesCBJ
+0.3

ANA finished -0.3 against expected, CBJ +1.2 — V. Husso (ANA) allowed 1.2 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 29:31 TOI · +1
M. Granlund
#64 · C · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:16 TOI · +2
B. Jenner
#38 · C · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:55 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • V. Husso (ANA) gave up 1.2 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • CBJ was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 28 rush chances.
  • ANA was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 22 rush chances.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · ANA at CBJ · 7:00 PM ET

Ducks at Blue Jackets: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 8:35 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
CBJ
Model favorite
48%
52%
ANA50CBJ

CBJ by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.62.7 CBJ; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

ANA← edge
edge →CBJ
52.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
52.0%Corsi%51.0%
2.80xGF / 602.63
2.59xGA / 602.43
2.09Goals for / gm2.12
2.32Goals against / gm1.98
0.981PDO — luck, not skill1.003

CBJ holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.981 vs 1.003) says CBJ has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters