Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · LAK at ANA

Ducks run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTSat, Jan 17

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 1 · ANA 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:28 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

Anaheim won 2-1, but the underlying numbers suggest they should have won bigger. The Ducks controlled 64% of 5v5 expected goals (4.68–2.69), yet underperformed by 2.68 goals, scoring just two when four to five was warranted.

Control was absolute. Anaheim held 65% of shot attempts (33–18) and generated seven high-danger chances to four for Los Angeles. Per-shot quality favored the Ducks: 0.079 xG per attempt versus the Kings' 0.045. They were lethal on the rush, scoring twice on 31 chances.

A. Forsberg (LAK) nearly stole a win with an elite performance, saving 31 of 33 shots and stopping 2.68 goals above expected. V. Husso (ANA) matched him with 17 of 18, also exceeding xG by 1.69. Both goalies overperformed, but Anaheim's overwhelming shot volume broke through.

Mikael Granlund's snap shot from the high slot at 04:02 of overtime ended it—a moment that capped Anaheim's offensive dominance. Los Angeles underperformed their xG by 1.69 but lacked the volume to threaten meaningfully. The scoreline was closer than the underlying picture warranted.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Jan 17

LAK

ANA

Ducks run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.7 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

2.69

ANA

4.68

37% of the chances64%

The board read LAK 1, ANA 2. The chances read LAK 2.7, ANA 4.7.

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

Luck check

ANA

−2.7

goals above expected

ANA4.68 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK2.69 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Kings left 1.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 06:11ANAM. McTavish0–1
P2 05:39LAKA. KempePP1–1
OT 04:02ANAM. Granlund1–2

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

Where the shots came from

LAK

37 shots

Final

85 shots

ANA

48 shots

LAK ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKANA

1 / 4

0.81 xG

High danger

1 / 7

1.99 xG

0 / 11

1.12 xG

Medium

1 / 19

2.10 xG

0 / 45

0.76 xG

Low

0 / 33

0.59 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 1 of 4, ANA 1 of 7.

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

In the net

A+

A. Forsberg

+2.7

LAK · 31/33

V. Husso

+1.7

ANA · 17/18

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 3–7

06:11ANAM. McTavish(O. Zellweger, R. Strome)0–1

2ndshots 8–9

05:39LAKA. Kempepower play(K. Fiala, A. Kuzmenko)1–1

3rdshots 7–13no goals

OTshots 0–4

04:02ANAM. Granlund(B. Sennecke)1–2

score reads LAK–ANA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.68

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.7

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.017

ANA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

49.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.69Expected goals4.68

ANA 64% of the chance quality

18Shots on goal33

4High-danger chances7

60All attempts (Corsi)59

Adjusted for score: LAK 52% · ANA 48%

Faceoffs · ANA won64%off53%neu48%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK1 / 4 · 0.81 xG

ANA1 / 7 · 1.99 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK0 / 11 · 1.12 xG

ANA1 / 19 · 2.10 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK0 / 45 · 0.76 xG

ANA0 / 33 · 0.59 xG

LAK went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.12 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

1 G · 2.69 xG · -1.7

ANA

2 G · 4.68 xG · -2.7

012345

LAK finished -1.7 against expected, ANA -2.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

SNAP1/18

TIP IN0/5

WRIST0/7

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/23

ANA

SNAP2/21

TIP IN0/9

WRIST0/6

SLAP0/6

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/11

LAK

ANA

Off the rush

1 G on 26

2.18 xG

2 G on 31

3.08 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

0 G on 5

1.04 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-18, ANA 2-for-21. ANA 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

A. Forsberg

LAK · 31/33 · .939

+2.7

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/72.0+1.0

Medium1/192.1+1.1

Low0/330.6+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

V. Husso

ANA · 17/18 · .944

+1.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.8-0.2

Medium0/111.1+1.1

Low0/450.8+0.8

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

37 shots

Final

85 shots

ANA

48 shots

LAK ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK 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

K. Fiala

#22 · L · LAK

0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 24:58 on ice · -1

M. Granlund

#64 · C · ANA

1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 24:32 on ice · +1

B. Sennecke

#45 · R · ANA

0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:47 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 17

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:25 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 sees this as essentially a toss-up: Los Angeles and Anaheim project to a 2.5–2.6 goal output, with the Ducks at 52% win probability. Both teams are statistically indistinguishable at 5v5, but recent results and underlying efficiency tell opposite stories.

Los Angeles is the hotter team by points pace, going 4-4-2 in their last 10 games. Anaheim is deeply underwater at -21 goal differential over the same span. They're getting outshot by luck alone, and positive regression is coming.

The season 5v5 numbers are nearly identical: both teams sit at 52.0% expected goals share and 52.0% Corsi percentage. Where they diverge is PDO. Los Angeles runs a 1.002, right at break-even. Anaheim's 0.981 means they're running cold on finishing and getting scored on at unfavorable moments. That gap—small but meaningful—predicts positive variance for the Ducks once puck luck normalizes.

For Los Angeles, Alex Laferriere is the primary offensive threat: 0.87 xG/60, 16 goals, 18 assists, with 2 high-danger goals on just a 9.9% shooting percentage. Jared Wright has chipped in 4 assists while generating 0.83 xG/60, though he remains goalless.

Anaheim counters with two elite generators: Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20 goals, 19 assists, 8 high-danger goals at 13.5% shooting) and Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 25 goals, 16 assists, 2 high-danger goals at 12.9% shooting). Sennecke's high-danger volume is the standout—he's generating chances at an elite rate.

Both teams are currently converting high-danger chances at 0%, and the rebound game is equally dormant. Neither has settled into a stable finishing rhythm. Los Angeles's Adrian Kempe is the defensive weak link; Anaheim's is Mason McTavish. In a coin-flip game, individual matchup advantages rarely move the needle.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 52%

52%

ANA

Model favorite

48%

52%

LAK50ANA

ANA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.6 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

LAK← edge

edge →ANA

52.0%52.0%

2.422.80

2.202.59

1.852.09

1.712.32

1.0020.981

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

LAK

4-4-2

-4 GD · 2d rest

ANA

1-8-1

-21 GD · 3d rest

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.981

ANA 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

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

LAK

Expected in goal

D. Kuemper

2 days rest.889 last start

Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA

Expected in goal

L. Dostal

3 days rest.960 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

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

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