Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater

Breakdown · SEA at ANA

P. Grubauer stands tall as the Kraken edge the Ducks

FinalMon, Dec 22

The verdict · stolen

The Kraken stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.57–5.41 and won anyway.

SEA 3 · ANA 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:34 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 Kraken beat the Ducks 3–1 despite the Ducks generating 68% of expected goals. Seattle's goaltender stole the game.

Anaheim controlled 66% of shot attempts (41–21) and 68% of expected goals (5.41–2.57). They led 7–3 on high-danger chances. This was not a close game; the Ducks were the better team.

P. Grubauer stopped 40 of 41 shots at 0.976 save percentage, a +4.41 performance against expected. He saved all seven high-danger chances he faced. L. Dostal (ANA) managed 18 of 20 stops at 0.900 SV% with a +0.57 performance. The gap between them decided the game.

Anaheim's execution collapsed. They scored zero goals on seven high-danger chances and wasted 10 rebound opportunities. They underperformed their expected goals by 4.41 goals. One goaltender overrode everything Anaheim accomplished.

J. Eberle (SEA) scored twice in 18:07. K. Kakko (SEA) added two assists in 17:07. J. LaCombe (ANA) recorded one assist in 24:58.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 22

SEA

ANA

P. Grubauer stands tall as the Kraken edge the Ducks

Chances 2.6 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

SEA

2.57

ANA

5.41

32% of the chances68%

The board read SEA 3, ANA 1. The chances read SEA 2.6, ANA 5.4.

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

Luck check

SEA

+0.4

goals above expected

SEA2.57 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

ANA5.41 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Ducks left 4.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 04:49SEAF. GaudreauPP1–0
P2 15:40ANAM. Granlund1–1
P3 10:04SEAJ. Eberle2–1
P3 19:24SEAJ. EberleEN3–1

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

Where the shots came from

SEA

33 shots

Final

96 shots

ANA

63 shots

SEA ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SEAANA

2 / 3

0.71 xG

High danger

0 / 7

1.64 xG

1 / 12

1.41 xG

Medium

1 / 26

2.71 xG

0 / 30

0.45 xG

Low

0 / 43

1.06 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 7 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

P. Grubauer

+4.4

SEA · 40/41

L. Dostal

+0.6

ANA · 18/20

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

P. Grubauer stands tall as the Kraken edge 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 10–7no goals

2ndshots 5–17

04:49SEAF. Gaudreaupower play(S. Wright, K. Kakko)1–0
15:40ANAM. Granlund(J. Trouba, J. LaCombe)1–1

3rdshots 6–17

10:04SEAJ. Eberle(M. Beniers, K. Kakko)2–1
19:24SEAJ. Eberleempty net(E. Tolvanen)3–1

score reads SEA–ANA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.57

SEA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.054

SEA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

37.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.57Expected goals5.41

ANA 68% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal41

3High-danger chances7

45All attempts (Corsi)76

Adjusted for score: SEA 36% · ANA 64%

Faceoffs · ANA won61%off67%neu48%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SEA2 / 3 · 0.71 xG

ANA0 / 7 · 1.64 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SEA1 / 12 · 1.41 xG

ANA1 / 26 · 2.71 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SEA0 / 30 · 0.45 xG

ANA0 / 43 · 1.06 xG

ANA went 1-for-26 from medium danger on 2.71 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SEA

3 G · 2.57 xG · +0.4

ANA

1 G · 5.41 xG · -4.4

0123456

SEA finished +0.4 against expected, ANA -4.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SEA

SNAP1/10

WRIST1/10

TIP IN0/3

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND1/3

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/12

ANA

SNAP0/23

WRIST0/17

TIP IN1/10

SLAP0/7

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/2

OTHER0/13

SEA

ANA

Off the rush

1 G on 20

1.50 xG

0 G on 40

2.96 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.36 xG

0 G on 10

1.71 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SEA went 1-for-10, ANA 0-for-23.

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

P. Grubauer

SEA · 40/41 · .976

+4.4

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/71.6+1.6

Medium1/262.7+1.7

Low0/431.1+1.1

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 · 18/20 · .900

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/30.7-1.3

Medium1/121.4+0.4

Low0/300.5+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

96 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SEA

33 shots

Final

96 shots

ANA

63 shots

SEA ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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. Eberle

#7 · R · SEA

2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 18:07 on ice · +2

K. Kakko

#84 · R · SEA

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:07 on ice · +1

J. LaCombe

#2 · D · ANA

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:58 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Dec 22

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:32 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 2.4-2.8 goal game favoring Anaheim at 57% win probability. This edge lives in underlying play, not luck.

Anaheim dominates the underlying metrics. The Ducks generate 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 to Seattle's 46.0%, and control 52.0% of shot attempts to the Kraken's 45.0%. That territorial edge matters over 60 minutes.

The Ducks are also the hotter team by points pace, winning 5-4-1 over their last 10. But form doesn't tell the full story. Anaheim sits at -7 goal differential in that span while Seattle is -18. Both teams are getting outshot or burned on execution — or both.

The real edge lies in PDO. Anaheim's 0.981 reflects genuinely cold shooting and/or goaltending; Seattle's 1.011 is softer ground. History says Anaheim regresses upward. This is how underlying play becomes actual play.

Both L. Dostal and J. Daccord are on back-to-backs — watch for a backup or a tired starter from either net.

Beckett Sennecke anchors Anaheim's offense with 20 goals, a 1.03 xG/60 rate, and 8 high-danger chances. Cutter Gauthier matches that edge at 0.99 xG/60 with 25 goals, though only 2 high-danger goals. For Seattle, Shane Wright (0.77 xG/60, 8 goals, 4 high-danger goals, 10.4% shooting) and Berkly Catton (0.68 xG/60, 6 goals, 8 assists, 5 high-danger goals, 8.8% shooting) carry the load.

Sennecke's high-danger volume and Gauthier's goal total both outpace Wright's 0.77 xG/60 and Catton's 0.68. The underlying play runs through Anaheim's top two.

The model's lean on Anaheim hinges on PDO regression. If the Ducks' cold shooting and goaltending normalize, underlying play becomes real play. Seattle's only path is stealing another tight result, but the Ducks' territorial advantage makes that unlikely.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 57%

57%

ANA

Model favorite

43%

57%

SEA50ANA

ANA by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.4–2.8 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

SEA← edge

edge →ANA

46.0%52.0%

45.0%52.0%

2.132.80

2.512.59

1.872.09

1.952.32

1.0110.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 0.981) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

SEA

2-8-0

-18 GD · 1d rest

ANA

5-4-1

-7 GD · 1d rest

1.011

SEA 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 own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Ducks own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
L. Dostal is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Daccord is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Ducks are the hotter team by points pace (5-4-1 in their last 10).
The Ducks are underwater at -7 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

SEA

Expected in goal

J. Daccord

back-to-back.972 last start

Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA

Expected in goal

L. Dostal

back-to-back.885 last start

Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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

SEA

Shane Wright8G 10A

0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh

Berkly Catton6G 8A

0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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