The Oilers earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
The 7–4 result flattered Edmonton's efficiency. Though Anaheim deployed 41 shots to Edmonton's 32, the Oilers dominated the chances that matter: 55% of expected goals (5.14–4.23) and a crushing 7–2 edge in high-danger chances. The real divergence wasn't volume—it was precision. Edmonton converted 43% of high-danger chances while outscoring their xG model by 1.86 goals, suggesting elite finishing or fortunate bounces.
The Ducks generated higher-quality looks than their shot total suggests, but Edmonton's transition game was decisive. The Oilers scored six goals on 34 rush chances; Anaheim, three on 37. Edmonton's interior game was lethal: M. Ekholm ignited the advantage early (19:49, P3) and finished with three goals. L. Draisaitl orchestrated from the wing with four assists—setting up chances rather than scoring, a sign of depth in concert.
Anaheim's power play was genuinely dominant—three goals on 13 shots (1.12 xG)—but couldn't overcome the five-on-five gap. M. Granlund's three goals kept the Ducks in range, yet Edmonton's goaltending closed the door: T. Jarry stopped 37 of 41 at 0.902 SV%, while V. Husso endured a relentless volume and held at 0.833 SV%.
The shot-attempt reversal (32–41) disguised an otherwise one-sided affair. Edmonton's xG model predicted a marginal edge; their actual performance—converting in transition, dominating the interior, and avoiding defensive breakdowns—delivered a commanding result.