Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
← Tue, Jan 13 · the slate
Breakdown · DAL at ANA

Ducks hold off the Stars

FinalTue, Jan 13
DALDallas Stars1ANAAnaheim Ducks3
The verdict · earned

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

DAL 1 · ANA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:41 AMxG: 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

Dallas generated quality but couldn't capitalize. The Stars mustered 3.02 expected goals but scored just one, underperforming by 2.02—a shortfall that defines the 3-1 loss more than any Anaheim dominance.

The Ducks controlled the game. They held 60% of expected goals (4.45–3.02), generated seven high-danger chances to Dallas's four, and shot equally (25 each). But Anaheim left production on the table, underperforming their xG by 1.45 goals. L. Dostal made the difference: he saved 2.02 goals above expected, turning a narrow advantage into a decisive margin.

C. DeSmith matched him in excellence, stopping 2.45 goals above expected with a 0.917 SV%, but volume matters. Dallas simply didn't generate enough sustained pressure to overcome even perfect goaltending.

Jacob Trouba's wrist shot from a sharp angle—late second period (P3, 19:39)—crystallized what the xG had already shown: Anaheim's control was suffocating Dallas's chances.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 13
DAL
1
ANA
3

Ducks hold off the Stars

Chances 3.0 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
3.02
ANA
4.45
40% of the chances60%

The board read DAL 1, ANA 3. The chances read DAL 3.0, ANA 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
−1.4
goals above expected
ANA4.45 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL3.02 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars left 2.0 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. P2 03:36ANAC. KreiderPP0–1
  2. P3 12:03ANAB. Sennecke0–2
  3. P3 17:48DALR. HintzPP1–2
  4. P3 19:39ANAJ. TroubaEN1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
36 shots
1
Final
84 shots
ANA
48 shots
3
DAL attackANA attack
DAL ANA Goal
36
shots · 1 in
48
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALANA
0 / 4
0.85 xG
High danger
2 / 7
2.16 xG
1 / 14
1.67 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.59 xG
0 / 38
0.50 xG
Low
0 / 50
0.70 xG

The Stars went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. DeSmith
+2.5
DAL · 22/24
A
L. Dostal
+2.0
ANA · 24/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks hold off the Stars

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 7–12no goals
    2ndshots 10–6
    1. 03:36ANAC. Kreiderpower play(M. Granlund, R. Gudas)0–1
    3rdshots 8–7
    1. 12:03ANAB. Sennecke0–2
    2. 17:48DALR. Hintzpower play(M. Duchene, W. Johnston)1–2
    3. 19:39ANAJ. Troubaempty net(J. LaCombe)1–3

    score reads DAL–ANA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.45
    ANA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.4
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.023
    ANA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    56.6%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.02Expected goals4.45
    ANA 60% of the chance quality
    25Shots on goal25
    4High-danger chances7
    56All attempts (Corsi)73
    Adjusted for score: DAL 46% · ANA 54%
    Faceoffs · ANA won62%off37%neu46%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    DAL0 / 4 · 0.85 xG
    ANA2 / 7 · 2.16 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    DAL1 / 14 · 1.67 xG
    ANA1 / 16 · 1.59 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    DAL0 / 38 · 0.50 xG
    ANA0 / 50 · 0.70 xG

    DAL went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.85 expected goals — 0.8 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    DAL
    1 G · 3.02 xG · -2.0
    ANA
    3 G · 4.45 xG · -1.4
    012345

    DAL finished -2.0 against expected, ANA -1.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    DAL
    SNAP1/15
    WRIST0/11
    TIP IN0/6
    SLAP0/1
    BACKHAND0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BAT0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/20
    ANA
    SNAP1/17
    WRIST1/11
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP0/8
    BACKHAND1/5
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    BAT0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/25
    DAL
    ANA
    Off the rush
    1 G on 22
    1.84 xG
    0 G on 25
    2.15 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 6
    0.97 xG
    0 G on 5
    0.66 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: DAL went 1-for-15, ANA 1-for-17.

    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 · 22/24 · .917
    +2.5
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/72.2+0.2
    Medium1/161.6+0.6
    Low0/500.7+0.7

    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 · 24/25 · .960
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.8+0.8
    Medium1/141.7+0.7
    Low0/380.5+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

    84 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    DAL
    36 shots
    1
    Final
    84 shots
    ANA
    48 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. Trouba
    #65 · D · ANA
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 25:59 on ice
    W. Johnston
    #53 · C · DAL
    0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:08 on ice
    J. LaCombe
    #2 · D · ANA
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:04 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Jan 13
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:38 AMEdited 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 2.5-2.7 goal game with the Ducks at 53% win probability—this is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    Dallas is hotter by points pace (3-3-4 in their last 10), while Anaheim sits at -22 in goal differential over the same span. But the underlying numbers favor Anaheim. The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0%, while Dallas musters 47.0%—expect territory to belong to the home team.

    The real story lives in PDO. Dallas runs hot at 1.024, suggesting regression ahead. Anaheim sits at 0.981, running cold and due for positive swing. That luck gap—Dallas fortunate, Anaheim unfortunate—explains why a team with obvious play advantage can be priced as a coin flip.

    Jason Robertson (25G 21A, 0.96 xG/60, 12.4% shooting) drives Dallas's attack. Michael Bunting (8G 14A, 0.83 xG/60, 7.6% shooting) is the secondary scorer. For Anaheim, Beckett Sennecke (20G 19A, 1.03 xG/60, 8 hard-edge goals) generates high-danger chances. Cutter Gauthier (25G 16A, 0.99 xG/60, 2 hard-edge goals) matches Robertson in goals on lower volume.

    Tyler Myers represents Dallas's defensive vulnerability. Mason McTavish is Anaheim's problem on the back end.

    This is a true flip. Anaheim controls play and has regression due, but Dallas's luck advantage and recent form justify even pricing.

    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
    3-3-4
    +1 GD · 3d rest
    ANA
    1-8-1
    -22 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 Stars are the hotter team by points pace (3-3-4 in their last 10).
    • The Ducks are underwater at -22 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
    DAL
    Expected in goal
    C. DeSmith
    3 days rest.839 last start
    Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    ANA
    Expected in goal
    L. Dostal
    2 days rest.871 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

    Back to the front page