Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
← Sat, Dec 20 · the slate
Breakdown · CBJ at ANA

Ducks hold off the Blue Jackets

FinalSat, Dec 20
CBJColumbus Blue Jackets3ANAAnaheim Ducks4
The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 3 · ANA 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:20 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 edged the Blue Jackets despite being outgunned on high-danger chances — 3 to 5. That's a dangerous deficit, but Anaheim's precision where it mattered most won out.

The Ducks held 52% of shot attempts (28–26 on goal) and led in expected goals 3.90–3.30 — a 54–46 split reflecting territorial advantage. The decisive edge: Anaheim generated 0.064 expected goals per shot attempt versus Columbus's 0.048. When your volume is similar but your efficiency is higher, the scoreboard catches up.

Columbus stayed close by thriving in low-danger opportunities. The Blue Jackets scored 2 goals from spots that typically generate minimal expected value — the kind of mistakes that can bury a team. But Anaheim was more lethal in transition: 2 goals on 35 rush chances to Columbus's 3 on 27. Columbus had a better rush conversion rate, yet Anaheim's overall execution on high-danger plays proved decisive.

Goaltending split the difference. E. Merzlikins (CBJ) recorded a 0.857 save percentage (24/28), while L. Dostal (ANA) posted 0.885 (23/26) — a marginal gap that favored the winner.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 20
CBJ
3
ANA
4

Ducks hold off the Blue Jackets

Chances 3.3 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
3.30
ANA
3.90
46% of the chances54%

The board read CBJ 3, ANA 4. The chances read CBJ 3.3, ANA 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
+0.1
goals above expected
ANA3.90 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ3.30 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
  1. P1 02:14ANAM. Granlund0–1
  2. P1 03:00ANAJ. Trouba0–2
  3. P1 05:54CBJD. VoronkovPP1–2
  4. P2 03:39CBJM. Marchment2–2
  5. P2 13:36ANAM. McTavish2–3
  6. P3 12:44CBJZ. Werenski3–3
  7. P3 16:31ANAP. Mintyukov3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
40 shots
3
Final
89 shots
ANA
49 shots
4
CBJ attackANA attack
CBJ ANA Goal
40
shots · 3 in
49
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJANA
1 / 5
1.19 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.76 xG
0 / 13
1.34 xG
Medium
3 / 26
2.61 xG
2 / 51
0.77 xG
Low
1 / 32
0.52 xG

High-danger looks: CBJ 1 of 5, ANA 0 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
L. Dostal
+0.3
ANA · 23/26
C
E. Merzlikins
−0.1
CBJ · 24/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks hold off the Blue Jackets

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 9–10
  1. 02:14ANAM. Granlund(O. Zellweger, F. Vatrano)0–1
  2. 03:00ANAJ. Trouba(R. Poehling, A. Killorn)0–2
  3. 05:54CBJD. Voronkovpower play(C. Coyle, Z. Werenski)1–2
2ndshots 10–11
  1. 03:39CBJM. Marchment(D. Severson, I. Provorov)2–2
  2. 13:36ANAM. McTavish(R. Johnston)2–3
3rdshots 7–7
  1. 12:44CBJZ. Werenski(D. Mateychuk, K. Johnson)3–3
  2. 16:31ANAP. Mintyukov(M. Granlund, R. Gudas)3–4

score reads CBJ–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.90
ANA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.022
ANA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.30Expected goals3.90
ANA 54% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal28
5High-danger chances3
69All attempts (Corsi)61
Adjusted for score: CBJ 56% · ANA 44%
Faceoffs · ANA won32%off40%neu61%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CBJ1 / 5 · 1.19 xG
ANA0 / 3 · 0.76 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CBJ0 / 13 · 1.34 xG
ANA3 / 26 · 2.61 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CBJ2 / 51 · 0.77 xG
ANA1 / 32 · 0.52 xG

CBJ went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.34 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CBJ
3 G · 3.30 xG · -0.3
ANA
4 G · 3.90 xG · +0.1
012345

CBJ finished -0.3 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
CBJ
SNAP1/19
WRIST0/6
TIP IN2/8
SLAP0/6
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/29
ANA
SNAP2/13
WRIST1/19
TIP IN0/8
SLAP1/3
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/2
BAT0/1
OTHER0/12
CBJ
ANA
Off the rush
3 G on 27
2.37 xG
2 G on 35
2.96 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.44 xG
0 G on 3
0.53 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CBJ went 1-for-19, ANA 2-for-13. CBJ 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
E. Merzlikins
CBJ · 24/28 · .857
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.8+0.8
Medium3/262.6-0.4
Low1/320.5-0.5

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 · 23/26 · .885
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.2+0.2
Medium0/131.3+1.3
Low2/510.8-1.2

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CBJ
40 shots
3
Final
89 shots
ANA
49 shots
4
CBJ attackANA attack
CBJ ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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
Z. Werenski
#8 · D · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 27:56 on ice · -1
M. Granlund
#64 · C · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 15:23 on ice · +1
I. Provorov
#9 · D · CBJ
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 26:18 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 20
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:18 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 goal game with the Ducks at 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find—the underlying metrics split almost perfectly.

Both teams own identical 52.0% expected goals share at 5v5. The Ducks hold a slight edge in Corsi (52.0% vs. 51.0%), a gap so thin it's noise. What separates them is luck. Columbus is running a 1.003 PDO; Anaheim sits at 0.981. The Ducks are due for positive regression—they've banked fewer goals than their shot quality suggests they should. That's the kind of thing that flips close games.

For Columbus, Boone Jenner anchors the attack at 0.98 xG/60, with 11 goals, 21 assists, and 2 high-danger goals on a 9.6% shooting rate. Mathieu Olivier runs cooler at 0.89 xG/60 but has 12 goals to show for it, including 1 high-danger goal, driven by his 13.3% shooting rate. Both carry offensive weight the Ducks can't ignore.

Anaheim counters with Beckett Sennecke, whose 1.03 xG/60 and 8 high-danger goals make him the most dangerous player on the ice. His 20 goals, 19 assists, and 13.5% shooting rate reflect volume and finish alike. Cutter Gauthier matches that intensity: 0.99 xG/60, 25 goals, 2 high-danger goals, and a ruthless 12.9% shooting rate. Two elite attacking prospects will challenge a Columbus team with its own offensive depth.

The defensive weak link for Columbus is Conor Garland; for Anaheim, Mason McTavish. Both teams show 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound conversion, which suggests either elite goaltending or volatile sample sizes. In a game this close, luck could be the difference.

A genuine coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 52%
52%
ANA
Model favorite
48%
52%
CBJ50ANA

ANA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score CBJ 2.6–2.7 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
CBJ← edge
edge →ANA
52.0%52.0%
51.0%52.0%
2.632.80
2.432.59
2.122.09
1.982.32
1.0030.981

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.981) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
CBJ
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
ANA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.003
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.981
ANA 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 Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
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
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

Back to the front page