Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
Breakdown · ANA at LAK

Ducks edge the Kings in a shootout

The verdict · coin flip

The Ducks won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

ANA 3 · LAK 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:07 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

The Kings possessed superior expected goals—3.36 to 3.32—but could not finish. Mason McTavish's shootout backhander delivered a 3–2 Ducks win; the Kings underperformed their chances by 1.36 goals.

Expected goals showed a near-dead heat, 3.36–3.32 for the Kings. High-danger chances went 3–5. Both L. Dostal and D. Kuemper posted identical 26/28 saves and 0.929 save percentages, each finishing 1.32–1.36 goals above expected. The Kings' 2-goal output squandered their statistical edge.

The Kings struck in transition. They scored 2 rush goals on 36 rush attempts. They generated 3 rebound chances and converted none. Shot attempts split 28–28.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Jan 16
ANA
3
LAK
2

Ducks edge the Kings in a shootout

Chances 3.3 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Ducks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.32
LAK
3.36
50% of the chances50%

The board read ANA 3, LAK 2. The chances read ANA 3.3, LAK 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
−0.3
goals above expected
ANA3.32 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK3.36 expected · 2 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 01:38LAKQ. Byfield0–1
  2. P2 11:33LAKJ. Armia0–2
  3. P2 12:12ANAR. Strome1–2
  4. P2 14:56ANAT. Washe2–2
  5. SO 00:00LAKB. ClarkePP2–2
  6. SO 00:00ANAB. SenneckePP2–2
  7. SO 00:00ANAM. McTavishPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
46 shots
4
Final
95 shots
LAK
49 shots
3
ANA attackLAK attack
ANA LAK Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

46
shots · 4 in
49
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANALAK
1 / 5
1.07 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.69 xG
1 / 15
1.64 xG
Medium
1 / 19
1.85 xG
0 / 36
0.60 xG
Low
1 / 43
0.82 xG

The Kings went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
L. Dostal
+1.4
ANA · 26/28
B+
D. Kuemper
+1.3
LAK · 26/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks edge the Kings in a shootout

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 6–10
  1. 01:38LAKQ. Byfield(J. Armia)0–1
2ndshots 11–12
  1. 11:33LAKJ. Armia(A. Lee)0–2
  2. 12:12ANAR. Strome(J. LaCombe, B. Sennecke)1–2
  3. 14:56ANAT. Washe(J. Trouba, B. Sennecke)2–2
3rdshots 8–5no goals
    OTshots 3–1no goals
      SO
      1. 00:00LAKB. Clarkepower play2–2
      2. 00:00ANAB. Senneckepower play2–2
      3. 00:00ANAM. McTavishpower play2–2

      score reads ANA–LAK

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      3.32
      ANA chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.3
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.005
      ANA puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      46.3%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.32Expected goals3.36
      LAK 50% of the chance quality
      28Shots on goal28
      5High-danger chances3
      56All attempts (Corsi)65
      Adjusted for score: ANA 49% · LAK 51%
      Faceoffs · LAK won60%off35%neu56%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      ANA1 / 5 · 1.07 xG
      LAK0 / 3 · 0.69 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      ANA1 / 15 · 1.64 xG
      LAK1 / 19 · 1.85 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      ANA0 / 36 · 0.60 xG
      LAK1 / 43 · 0.82 xG

      LAK went 1-for-19 from medium danger on 1.85 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      ANA
      3 G · 3.32 xG · -0.3
      LAK
      2 G · 3.36 xG · -1.4
      01234

      ANA finished -0.3 against expected, LAK -1.4.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      ANA
      WRIST1/24
      SLAP1/8
      SNAP0/4
      BACKHAND0/4
      TIP IN0/3
      OTHER0/13
      LAK
      WRIST1/17
      SLAP1/12
      SNAP0/6
      BACKHAND0/5
      TIP IN0/6
      OTHER0/19
      ANA
      LAK
      Off the rush
      1 G on 31
      2.64 xG
      2 G on 36
      2.61 xG
      Off rebounds
      1 G on 2
      0.40 xG
      0 G on 3
      0.42 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 1-for-24, LAK 1-for-17. LAK scored 2 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
      L. Dostal
      ANA · 26/28 · .929
      +1.4
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.7+0.7
      Medium1/191.9+0.8
      Low1/430.8-0.2

      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

      D. Kuemper
      LAK · 26/28 · .929
      +1.3
      saved above expected
      B+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/51.1+0.1
      Medium1/151.6+0.6
      Low0/360.6+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

      95 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      ANA
      46 shots
      4
      Final
      95 shots
      LAK
      49 shots
      3
      ANA attackLAK attack
      ANA LAK Goal

      Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

      Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, LAK 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
      B. Sennecke
      #45 · R · ANA
      0 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 23:59 on ice · +2
      J. Armia
      #40 · R · LAK
      1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 15:27 on ice · +2
      J. LaCombe
      #2 · D · ANA
      0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 27:06 on ice · +2
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Fri, Jan 16
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:05 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 2.5-2.6 expected goals per side with the Kings at 52% win probability. That's about as close to random as hockey gets.

      The Kings are the hotter team, running 4-4-2 over their last ten games. The Ducks have crumbled in that span, sitting at -21 goal differential. Yet Anaheim's underlying 5v5 numbers are identical to Los Angeles's: both teams hold 52.0% expected goals percentage and 52.0% Corsi percentage. The divergence lies in luck. The Ducks' PDO sits at 0.981—they're scoring at a brutally cold rate—while the Kings' PDO is 1.002, riding above true talent.

      This matters tactically. Anaheim's recent collapse doesn't reflect a structural problem; it reflects variance. The Ducks are due for positive regression, and they know it. The Kings, meanwhile, are riding a high that their underlying play doesn't fully support. One of the oldest patterns in hockey is punishing teams that outperform their talent level, and the Kings are vulnerable to that correction.

      D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back. Watch for either a backup start or a tired starter—this is where Anaheim can steal leverage.

      Beckett Sennecke leads Anaheim's offense at 1.03 expected goals per 60 minutes, having posted 20 goals and 19 assists with 8 high-danger chances and a 13.5% shooting rate. He's shooting more efficiently than his underlying play suggests, another form of that Ducks regression tail. Cutter Gauthier sits at 0.99 xG/60 with 25 goals and 16 assists, though his 2 high-danger goals and 12.9% shooting rate suggest he's generating more than he's finishing. For Los Angeles, Alex Laferriere carries 0.87 xG/60—significantly lower volume—but has 16 goals and 18 assists. Jared Wright, despite no goals, chips in at 0.83 xG/60 with 4 assists.

      The matchup narrative—"neutralize Sennecke," "contain Laferriere"—overstates what either team can actually accomplish. The possession is too even, the underlying metrics too similar, for one team to simply shut down the other. The Kings' defensive weak link is Adrian Kempe; Anaheim's is Mason McTavish. These aren't disasters, just the soft spots where the other team will hunt.

      This game is decided by coin flip not because both teams are bad, but because they're nearly identical. The Kings have the recent win streak and their projection edge. The Ducks have the statistical tailwind and the correction narrative. In a true toss-up, recent form becomes the only advantage either team can claim.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      LAK 52%
      52%
      LAK
      Model favorite
      48%
      52%
      ANA50LAK

      LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.5–2.6 LAK; 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
      ANA← edge
      edge →LAK
      52.0%52.0%
      52.0%52.0%
      2.802.42
      2.592.20
      2.091.85
      2.321.71
      0.9811.002

      LAK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.002) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      ANA
      1-8-1
      -21 GD · 2d rest
      LAK
      4-4-2
      -4 GD · 1d rest
      0.981
      ANA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.002
      LAK 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
      • D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Kings are the hotter team by points pace (4-4-2 in their last 10).
      • The Ducks are underwater at -21 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
      ANA
      Expected in goal
      L. Dostal
      2 days rest.960 last start
      Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      LAK
      Expected in goal
      D. Kuemper
      back-to-back.889 last start
      Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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
      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
      LAK
      Alex Laferriere16G 18A
      0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
      Jared Wright0G 4A
      0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next