Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vancouver Canucks sweater
← Thu, Jan 29 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at VAN

Canucks shut out the Ducks, 2-0

FinalThu, Jan 29
ANAAnaheim Ducks0VANVancouver Canucks2
The verdict · earned

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

ANA 0 · VAN 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:18 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 generated more high-danger chances (5–4) and more shot attempts (33–26), yet scored zero—underperforming their expected goals by 3.62. Vancouver underperformed by 2.07, a smaller shortfall. Despite xG split 53–47% (4.07–3.62), the Canucks held 44% of shot attempts and converted efficiently.

Both teams crashed the net, creating rebound opportunities (Anaheim 5, Vancouver 7) with neither capitalizing. Anaheim's failure to finish decided the game.

N. Tolopilo recorded the decisive outing: 32 saves at 1.000 SV%, +3.51 above expected. K. Lankinen stopped 1 shot. L. Dostal posted 24 of 25 saves (0.960 SV%, +3.07 above expected), stellar work negated by Anaheim's scoring drought.

Teddy Blueger's wrist shot from the high slot (19:32, P3) opened the scoring. The Three Stars—F. Hronek (1A, 27:00), J. DeBrusk (1A, 16:27), T. Blueger (1G, 15:01)—concentrated Vancouver's depth.

Three Stars

  • #17 F. Hronek (VAN) — 1A in 27:00
  • #74 J. DeBrusk (VAN) — 1A in 16:27
  • #53 T. Blueger (VAN) — 1G in 15:01
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 29
ANA
0
VAN
2

Canucks shut out the Ducks, 2-0

Chances 3.6 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.62
VAN
4.07
47% of the chances53%

The board read ANA 0, VAN 2. The chances read ANA 3.6, VAN 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VAN
−2.1
goals above expected
VAN4.07 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.62 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks left 3.6 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. P3 10:18VAND. O'Connor0–1
  2. P3 19:32VANT. BluegerEN0–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
49 shots
0
Final
93 shots
VAN
44 shots
2
ANA attackVAN attack
ANA VAN Goal
49
shots · 0 in
44
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANAVAN
0 / 4
0.97 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.64 xG
0 / 20
1.97 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.80 xG
0 / 40
0.69 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.62 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
K. Lankinen
+3.6
VAN · 1/1
A+
N. Tolopilo
+3.6
VAN · 32/32
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Canucks shut out the Ducks, 2-0

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 9–9no goals
    2ndshots 14–8no goals
      3rdshots 10–9
      1. 10:18VAND. O'Connor(J. DeBrusk)0–1
      2. 19:32VANT. Bluegerempty net(F. Hronek)0–2

      score reads ANA–VAN

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      4.07
      VAN chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −2.1
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.034
      VAN puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      48.0%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.62Expected goals4.07
      VAN 53% of the chance quality
      33Shots on goal26
      4High-danger chances5
      64All attempts (Corsi)59
      Adjusted for score: ANA 53% · VAN 47%
      Faceoffs · VAN won53%off53%neu47%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      ANA0 / 4 · 0.97 xG
      VAN1 / 5 · 1.64 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      ANA0 / 20 · 1.97 xG
      VAN1 / 14 · 1.80 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      ANA0 / 40 · 0.69 xG
      VAN0 / 40 · 0.62 xG

      ANA went 0-for-20 from medium danger on 1.97 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      ANA
      0 G · 3.62 xG · -3.6
      VAN
      2 G · 4.07 xG · -2.1
      012345

      ANA finished -3.6 against expected, VAN -2.1.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      ANA
      WRIST0/23
      SNAP0/10
      SLAP0/5
      BACKHAND0/5
      TIP IN0/3
      WRAP AROUND0/2
      POKE0/1
      OTHER0/15
      VAN
      WRIST1/17
      SNAP0/19
      SLAP1/6
      BACKHAND0/1
      TIP IN0/1
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      POKE0/0
      OTHER0/15
      ANA
      VAN
      Off the rush
      0 G on 32
      2.48 xG
      1 G on 19
      1.51 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 5
      0.68 xG
      0 G on 7
      1.00 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-23, VAN 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
      L. Dostal
      ANA · 24/25 · .960
      +3.1
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/51.6+0.6
      Medium1/141.8+0.8
      Low0/400.6+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

      K. Lankinen
      VAN · 1/1 · 1.000
      +3.6
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/41.0+1.0
      Medium0/202.0+2.0
      Low0/400.7+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

      N. Tolopilo
      VAN · 32/32 · 1.000
      +3.6
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/41.0+1.0
      Medium0/202.0+2.0
      Low0/400.7+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

      93 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      ANA
      49 shots
      0
      Final
      93 shots
      VAN
      44 shots
      2
      ANA attackVAN attack
      ANA VAN Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, VAN 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
      F. Hronek
      #17 · D · VAN
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 27:00 on ice · +2
      J. DeBrusk
      #74 · L · VAN
      0 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 16:27 on ice · +1
      T. Blueger
      #53 · C · VAN
      1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 15:01 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Thu, Jan 29
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:16 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 an ANA 2.8 - 2.5 VAN game with the Ducks at 55% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

      Anaheim owns the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG and 52.0% Corsi, evidence of sustained territorial advantage. Vancouver's countertactic is restraint: the Canucks sit at 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi, signaling an intent to limit volume and exploit efficiency. Neither margin is overwhelming, which explains the slim Ducks edge in win probability.

      Both teams are running cold. Vancouver's PDO is 0.974 and Anaheim's is 0.981, suggesting positive regression awaits the team that breaks through first. A fluky bounce or converted rebound could easily flip this game.

      Beckett Sennecke powers Anaheim's offense. He carries 1.03 xG/60 with 20 goals and 19 assists — 8 from high-danger areas — and has converted at 13.5%. Cutter Gauthier backs him at 0.99 xG/60 with 25 goals and 16 assists; his 12.9% shooting rate suggests regression as puck luck normalizes.

      For Vancouver, Filip Chytil presents an inverted problem. He owns identical underlying volume to Sennecke at 1.03 xG/60 but has converted only 3 goals on a 15.0% shooting rate, indicating severe underperformance. Drew O'Connor, at 0.85 xG/60 with 13 goals and 11 assists, represents steadier production with 3 high-danger goals; his 11.8% shooting also suggests reversion upward.

      Anaheim's structural weakness shows in the numbers: 0% high-danger and 0% rebound goals, indicating a reliance on perimeter chances and an inability to create chaos in tight spaces. Mason McTavish is the flagged defensive liability. Vancouver mirrors the high-danger shortfall and lists Victor Mancini as a defensive weak link — where Canucks breakdowns originate.

      The tactical frame favors Anaheim's possession edge, but Vancouver's cold PDO and Chytil's underperformance represent leverage points. At 55% for the Ducks, this is priced fairly. The play is the underdog if you trust shooting regression over possession metrics.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      ANA 55%
      55%
      ANA
      Model favorite
      55%
      45%
      ANA50VAN

      ANA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score ANA 2.8–2.5 VAN; 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 →VAN
      52.0%44.0%
      52.0%46.0%
      2.802.22
      2.592.81
      2.091.60
      2.322.56
      0.9810.974

      ANA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.974) says ANA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · No games yet
      ANA
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      VAN
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      0.981
      ANA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.974
      VAN PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Ducks own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
      • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Ducks own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
      • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      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
      VAN
      Filip Chytil3G 0A
      1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
      Drew O'Connor13G 11A
      0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page