Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
Breakdown · DAL at ANA

Stars pull away from the Ducks

The verdict · coin flip

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

DAL 8 · ANA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:05 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 played Dallas even by the underlying numbers — shot attempts tied at 25 apiece, expected goals nearly identical at 2.88–2.93 — but the scoreboard told a different story. The Stars won 8-3 because they converted like the Ducks weren't in the building.

Dallas overperformed their xG by 5.07 goals, an enormous gap that suggests either elite execution or variance running hot. The numbers hint at both. The Stars generated higher-quality chances (0.064 xG per shot versus Anaheim's 0.045) and capitalized off the rush; eight goals on 24 rush attempts overwhelmed Anaheim's defense. They also scored twice from low-danger positions — the kind of luck that swings blowouts.

The Ducks' collapse came in goal. L. Dostal surrendered 3.2 goals more than expected in limited action, yanked after the first period. P. Mrazek wasn't much better, coughing up 1.89 above expected despite stopping 14 of 18. Both goaltenders faced higher-volume pressure than the shot total suggests, and neither could hold the door.

Anaheim's only bright spot was clinical efficiency in the high-danger area — they scored twice on five chances there, matching Dallas's 40% conversion rate in the same spots. That discipline didn't matter when the Stars were walking in tap-ins from the outside.

Mikael Granlund's snap from the doorstep early in the second set the trajectory, and the rest of the Dallas lineup finished the job.

The gap between underlying process and result was too wide to blame randomness alone. Dallas simply had more dangerous looks and finished them. When the Ducks couldn't keep their goaltenders upright, the rest became academic.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 19
DAL
8
ANA
3

Stars pull away from the Ducks

Chances 2.9 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Stars took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
2.93
ANA
2.88
51% of the chances50%

The board read DAL 8, ANA 3. The chances read DAL 2.9, ANA 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
+5.1
goals above expected
DAL2.93 expected · 8 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA2.88 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars scored 5.1 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:37DALO. BäckSH1–0
  2. P1 03:32ANAR. Poehling1–1
  3. P1 04:42DALR. Hintz2–1
  4. P1 12:41DALS. Steel3–1
  5. P1 14:19DALT. Harley4–1
  6. P2 11:10DALJ. RobertsonPP5–1
  7. P2 15:10DALJ. Robertson6–1
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
32 shots
8
Final
73 shots
ANA
41 shots
3
DAL attackANA attack
DAL ANA Goal
32
shots · 8 in
41
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALANA
2 / 5
1.07 xG
High danger
2 / 5
1.07 xG
4 / 11
1.43 xG
Medium
0 / 12
1.27 xG
2 / 30
0.43 xG
Low
1 / 47
0.54 xG

The Stars buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
C. DeSmith
−0.1
DAL · 22/25
D-
L. Dostal
−1.1
ANA · 3/7
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars 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 7–8
  1. 02:37DALO. Bäckshorthanded(R. Faksa)1–0
  2. 03:32ANAR. Poehling(R. Gudas, R. Johnston)1–1
  3. 04:42DALR. Hintz(J. Robertson, M. Bourque)2–1
  4. 12:41DALS. Steel(J. Benn, M. Heiskanen)3–1
  5. 14:19DALT. Harley(M. Rantanen)4–1
2ndshots 8–9
  1. 11:10DALJ. Robertsonpower play(M. Rantanen, M. Heiskanen)5–1
  2. 15:10DALJ. Robertson(R. Hintz)6–1
  3. 18:30DALA. Erne(R. Faksa, T. Harley)7–1
3rdshots 10–8
  1. 01:01ANAB. Sennecke(M. McTavish, C. Kreider)7–2
  2. 01:42DALI. Lyubushkin(J. Hryckowian, E. Lindell)8–2
  3. 14:22ANAM. Granlund(J. LaCombe, T. Terry)8–3

score reads DAL–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.93
DAL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+5.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.127
DAL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.8%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.93Expected goals2.88
DAL 51% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal25
5High-danger chances5
46All attempts (Corsi)64
Adjusted for score: DAL 35% · ANA 65%
Faceoffs · ANA won69%off35%neu43%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DAL2 / 5 · 1.07 xG
ANA2 / 5 · 1.07 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DAL4 / 11 · 1.43 xG
ANA0 / 12 · 1.27 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DAL2 / 30 · 0.43 xG
ANA1 / 47 · 0.54 xG

DAL went 4-for-11 from medium danger on 1.43 expected goals — 2.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DAL
8 G · 2.93 xG · +5.1
ANA
3 G · 2.88 xG · +0.1
0123456789

DAL finished +5.1 against expected, ANA +0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DAL
SNAP4/16
WRIST3/9
TIP IN0/1
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/14
ANA
SNAP3/18
WRIST0/7
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/23
DAL
ANA
Off the rush
8 G on 24
2.51 xG
1 G on 26
1.84 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.12 xG
2 G on 6
0.87 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: DAL went 4-for-16, ANA 3-for-18. DAL scored 8 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
C. DeSmith
DAL · 22/25 · .880
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.1-0.9
Medium0/121.3+1.3
Low1/470.5-0.5

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

L. Dostal
ANA · 3/7 · .429
-1.1
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.1-0.9
Medium4/111.4-2.6
Low2/300.4-1.6

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

P. Mrazek
ANA · 14/18 · .778
-1.1
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.1-0.9
Medium4/111.4-2.6
Low2/300.4-1.6

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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
DAL
32 shots
8
Final
73 shots
ANA
41 shots
3
DAL attackANA attack
DAL ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, ANA 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
J. Robertson
#21 · L · DAL
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 15:18 on ice · +2
M. Heiskanen
#4 · D · DAL
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 22:05 on ice
T. Harley
#55 · D · DAL
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:09 on ice · +5
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Dec 19
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:03 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 2.5 to 2.7 goal spread with the Ducks at 53% win probability—close enough that flipping a coin would be more decisive.

Anaheim edges Dallas in two underlying metrics that matter. The Ducks control 52.0% of Corsi territory, holding shots on Dallas at a disadvantage. Their expected goals ratio sits at 52.0% xG to Dallas's 51.0%—a marginal advantage that compounds into the tighter win probability.

But here's what complicates the edge: the Ducks' PDO of 0.981 signals they're scoring below their luck baseline, due for positive regression. Dallas runs at 1.024, the inverse problem—they're outscoring their luck line and will regress downward. When both teams revert to the mean simultaneously, that 53% Anaheim advantage evaporates.

The matchup centers on two wings with 25 goals apiece. Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 12.9% shooting) and Jason Robertson (0.96 xG/60, 12.4% shooting) generate nearly identical expected goals, yet Robertson has just 2 high-danger goals compared to Gauthier's 8. Anaheim's scoring clusters near the goal line, while Dallas spreads dangerous chances across the ice. That concentration compounds Anaheim's territorial edge.

Michael Bunting represents Dallas's secondary threat—0.83 xG/60, 8 goals, 7.6% shooting—shooting well below his underlying value. Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20 goals, 13.5% shooting) is Anaheim's quieter threat, generating the most expected goals per 60 on either roster but not yet matching Gauthier's goal tally.

The Ducks drive play (52.0% Corsi, 52.0% xG%), Dallas survives it (47.0% Corsi), and both teams will regress toward their actual talent levels. That tension—Anaheim's edge in process, Dallas's unsustainable hot streak—explains why a model would call it 53% in one direction and nearly even in game-by-game spread. This is as close to a true toss-up as the season offers.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 53%
53%
ANA
Model favorite
47%
53%
DAL50ANA

ANA by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.5–2.7 ANA; 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
DAL← edge
edge →ANA
51.0%52.0%
47.0%52.0%
2.362.80
2.292.59
2.072.09
1.682.32
1.0240.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 0.981) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
DAL
7-2-1
+9 GD · 3d rest
ANA
5-4-1
-2 GD · 2d rest
1.024
DAL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
DAL
Expected in goal
C. DeSmith
3 days rest.964 last start
Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA
Expected in goal
V. Husso
2 days rest.857 last start
Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 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
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next