The Sharks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.76–5.42 and won anyway.
The Sharks won 5–4 in a game the Ducks should have won. San Jose faced 5.42 expected goals against and generated just 1.76 — a 76–24 deficit that would sink most teams. Instead, superior goaltending and finishing depth flipped the result.
Y. Askarov's 0.905 save percentage translated to 1.42 goals saved above expectation. L. Dostal's 0.556 mark — split across two goalies mid-game — cost Anaheim dearly, allowing 2.78 goals beyond what the shot quality deserved. The Ducks generated more dangerous chances (7 high-danger opportunities to 3), but neither margin nor talent won the night. Execution and variance did.
The Ducks were objectively the better team in analytics: 42 shot attempts to 13, 0.065 expected goals per shot versus San Jose's 0.049. They crashed the net (9 rebound chances) and attacked off the rush (4 goals on 43 chances). Yet rush-play efficiency cuts both ways. The Sharks' 5 goals on 19 rush attempts eclipsed Anaheim's rate and proved decisive in the third period.
T. Terry (2 goals, 1 assist) and the Sharks' secondary scoring overcame the xG gap. M. Celebrini (1 goal, 2 assists) and A. Wennberg (2 assists) finished with authority. The Ducks' elite shot quality couldn't compensate for goaltending collapse — P. Mrazek's 3/4 saves offered no relief to his partner's subpar 38/42 night.
This was a heist: the xG equivalent of stealing a game on a shot-attempt deficit, salvaged by rush dominance and goaltending swings. Anaheim outplayed San Jose in every meaningful way except the one that appeared on the scoreboard.
