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.
The underlying story
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 danger ladder
CBJ went 3-for-14 from medium danger on 1.41 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.
Finishing vs expected
ANA finished -0.3 against expected, CBJ +1.2 — V. Husso (ANA) allowed 1.2 more goals than expected.
Shot diet
Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 2-for-22, CBJ 2-for-14. ANA scored 3 of theirs off the rush.
- 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.