Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
Breakdown · MIN at ANA

Wild pull away from the Ducks

The verdict · earned

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

MIN 5 · ANA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:30 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

F. Gustavsson stole this game. The Minnesota goalie saved 1.53 goals above expected while Anaheim underperformed their xG by 1.53 goals—a 3-goal variance swing that lifted Minnesota from a one-goal edge into a 5-2 rout.

Minnesota controlled 59% of expected goals (5.09–3.53), a solid underlying advantage. The Wild were efficient on the rush, scoring 5 goals on 30 chances, while Anaheim held 45% of shot attempts (28–34) but couldn't finish quality looks.

Troy Terry's snap shot from the doorstep (17:27, third period) cut into the deficit, but Anaheim's 1.53-goal underperformance against their xG made the margin insurmountable. Both teams generated 6 rebound opportunities each without converting any, leaving Minnesota's goaltending excellence and scoring efficiency as the decisive difference.


Final: MIN 5 – ANA 2

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 2
MIN
5
ANA
2

Wild pull away from the Ducks

Chances 5.1 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
5.09
ANA
3.53
59% of the chances41%

The board read MIN 5, ANA 2. The chances read MIN 5.1, ANA 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
−0.1
goals above expected
MIN5.09 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.53 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks left 1.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:39MINK. KaprizovPP1–0
  2. P2 08:10MIND. Yurov2–0
  3. P2 13:46ANAB. Sennecke2–1
  4. P2 14:45MINY. Trenin3–1
  5. P3 03:21MIND. Yurov4–1
  6. P3 15:02MINN. Sturm5–1
  7. P3 17:27ANAT. Terry5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
62 shots
5
Final
111 shots
ANA
49 shots
2
MIN attackANA attack
MIN ANA Goal
62
shots · 5 in
49
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINANA
2 / 8
2.22 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.32 xG
2 / 17
1.86 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.61 xG
1 / 59
1.01 xG
Low
0 / 45
0.60 xG

The Wild buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
F. Gustavsson
+1.5
MIN · 26/28
C
L. Dostal
+0.1
ANA · 29/34
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild 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 7–10
  1. 05:39MINK. Kaprizovpower play(J. Eriksson Ek, Q. Hughes)1–0
2ndshots 19–10
  1. 08:10MIND. Yurov(Y. Trenin, Q. Hughes)2–0
  2. 13:46ANAB. Sennecke(M. McTavish)2–1
  3. 14:45MINY. Trenin(Q. Hughes, J. Eriksson Ek)3–1
3rdshots 8–8
  1. 03:21MIND. Yurov(Q. Hughes, M. Zuccarello)4–1
  2. 15:02MINN. Sturm(M. Foligno, J. Brodin)5–1
  3. 17:27ANAT. Terry(M. Granlund)5–2

score reads MIN–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.09
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.1
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.030
MIN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
55.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.09Expected goals3.53
MIN 59% of the chance quality
34Shots on goal28
8High-danger chances6
84All attempts (Corsi)67
Adjusted for score: MIN 50% · ANA 50%
Faceoffs · ANA won41%off77%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
MIN2 / 8 · 2.22 xG
ANA1 / 6 · 1.32 xG
Medium dangermid-range
MIN2 / 17 · 1.86 xG
ANA1 / 16 · 1.61 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
MIN1 / 59 · 1.01 xG
ANA0 / 45 · 0.60 xG

ANA went 1-for-16 from medium danger on 1.61 expected goals — 0.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
MIN
5 G · 5.09 xG · -0.1
ANA
2 G · 3.53 xG · -1.5
0123456

MIN finished -0.1 against expected, ANA -1.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
MIN
SNAP2/32
TIP IN1/12
SLAP1/9
WRIST0/6
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED1/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/22
ANA
SNAP2/25
TIP IN0/8
SLAP0/7
WRIST0/6
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/18
MIN
ANA
Off the rush
5 G on 30
2.26 xG
1 G on 28
1.71 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
1.11 xG
0 G on 6
1.06 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: MIN went 2-for-32, ANA 2-for-25. MIN scored 5 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
F. Gustavsson
MIN · 26/28 · .929
+1.5
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.3+0.3
Medium1/161.6+0.6
Low0/450.6+0.6

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

L. Dostal
ANA · 29/34 · .853
+0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.2+0.2
Medium2/171.9-0.1
Low1/591.0+0.0

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

111 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
MIN
62 shots
5
Final
111 shots
ANA
49 shots
2
MIN attackANA attack
MIN ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN 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
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
0 G · 4 A · 2 SOG · 23:16 on ice · +2
J. Eriksson Ek
#14 · C · MIN
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:42 on ice · +1
D. Yurov
#22 · R · MIN
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 14:21 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Jan 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:47 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 MIN 2.6 - 2.7 ANA game with the Ducks at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Minnesota has the form advantage: 7-1-2 in their last 10, while Anaheim sits at -17 goal differential over the same span. At 5v5, the teams are eerily matched. Both carry a 52.0% expected goal percentage. Corsi diverges: Anaheim drives play at 52.0% while the Wild check in at 48.0%, suggesting territorial dominance for the Ducks. Minnesota's PDO sits at 1.007—they're riding some luck. Anaheim's 0.981 reads as the inverse: they're running cold, and positive regression is likely incoming.

The Ducks' territorial advantage is substantial, but conversion has stalled. Minnesota's task is clear: don't let that possession advantage translate into sustained offensive pressure.

Matt Boldy carries the Wild's offensive load. His 0.89 xG per 60 minutes underlies 22 goals and 18 assists; five came from high-danger chances at a 13.7% shooting rate that suggests sustainable production. Robby Fabbri mirrors his expected goals (0.88 per 60) but has converted at just 6.9%—two goals on three assists—and is marked likely out.

For Anaheim, Beckett Sennecke leads. At 1.03 xG per 60, he's the most dangerous weapon on ice: 20 goals, 19 assists, eight from high-danger chances, 13.5% shooting. Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG per 60, 25 goals, 16 assists) provides secondary volume, though only two of his goals came from high-danger spots—a signal that elite underlying metrics haven't fully translated into elite finishing. Minnesota must neutralize both.

For Anaheim, the priority is exploiting Matt Kiersted, Minnesota's defensive weak link, while shielding their own vulnerability: Mason McTavish. That said, McTavish's 25 goals complicate any defensive focus.

This game hinges on whether Anaheim converts their possession advantage into sustained pressure, and whether Minnesota's shooting luck—real or transient—persists. The model sees an even split, and the evidence supports it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 53%
53%
ANA
Model favorite
47%
53%
MIN50ANA

ANA by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MIN 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
MIN← edge
edge →ANA
52.0%52.0%
48.0%52.0%
2.552.80
2.402.59
2.042.09
1.932.32
1.0070.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 0.981) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
MIN
7-1-2
+14 GD · 2d rest
ANA
2-6-2
-17 GD · 2d rest
1.007
MIN 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.
Things to watch
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Wild are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
  • The Ducks are underwater at -17 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
MIN
Expected in goal
J. Wallstedt
2 days rest.893 last start
Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
2 days rest.862 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
MIN
Matt Boldy22G 18A
0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Robby Fabbri2G 3A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% 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