Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · VGK at ANA

Ducks steal one from the Golden Knights against the run of play

FinalSun, Feb 1

VGKVegas Golden Knights3 ANAAnaheim Ducks4

The verdict · stolen

The Ducks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.17–2.48 and won anyway.

VGK 3 · ANA 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:40 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 4-3 despite losing the expected goals battle decisively. Vegas held 4.17 xG to the Ducks' 2.48—a 63-37 split that makes the final score an outlier rather than a result.

The numbers explain why. The Golden Knights generated better looks per shot (0.067 xG/shot vs. 0.050) and led high-danger chances 9 to 2. But L. Dostal overperformed his expected goals by 1.17 while A. Hill underperformed by 0.52, a swing that tilted the outcome despite Vegas's dominance.

Anaheim's rush attack provided the escape route. The Ducks scored three times on 23 rush chances; Vegas converted twice on 25. The Golden Knights crashed harder for rebounds—five opportunities created, one converted—but couldn't overcome the goaltending variance.

Tomas Hertl's snap shot from the slot at 19:54 of the third marked the inflection point.

The standout performers embodied this efficiency. J. Trouba recorded two assists in 25:13; M. Stone matched that in 23:29. R. Poehling added a goal and an assist in 15:44, a punch-above-weight contribution to a theft.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 1

VGK

ANA

Ducks steal one from the Golden Knights against the run of play

Chances 4.2 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

VGK

4.17

ANA

2.48

63% of the chances37%

The board read VGK 3, ANA 4. The chances read VGK 4.2, ANA 2.5.

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

Luck check

ANA

+1.5

goals above expected

ANA2.48 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

VGK4.17 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Ducks scored 1.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 13:21ANAC. Kreider0–1
P2 01:10ANAC. Kreider0–2
P2 04:32ANAC. GauthierPP0–3
P2 09:47VGKM. Marner1–3
P3 10:40VGKI. Barbashev2–3
P3 18:53ANAR. PoehlingEN2–4
P3 19:54VGKT. HertlPP3–4

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

Where the shots came from

VGK

45 shots

Final

84 shots

ANA

39 shots

VGK ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

VGKANA

2 / 9

2.12 xG

High danger

2 / 2

0.76 xG

1 / 13

1.45 xG

Medium

2 / 9

1.03 xG

0 / 40

0.59 xG

Low

0 / 39

0.70 xG

The Ducks buried 2 of 2 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

B+

L. Dostal

+1.2

ANA · 28/31

A. Hill

−0.5

VGK · 19/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks steal one from the Golden Knights against the run of play

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 5–8

13:21ANAC. Kreider(R. Poehling, P. Mintyukov)0–1

2ndshots 7–8

01:10ANAC. Kreider(J. Trouba, T. Terry)0–2
04:32ANAC. Gauthierpower play(J. LaCombe, B. Sennecke)0–3
09:47VGKM. Marner(M. Stone, P. Dorofeyev)1–3

3rdshots 19–7

10:40VGKI. Barbashev(J. Eichel, A. Holtz)2–3
18:53ANAR. Poehlingempty net(T. Terry, J. Trouba)2–4
19:54VGKT. Hertlpower play(M. Stone)3–4

score reads VGK–ANA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.48

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.032

ANA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

44.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.17Expected goals2.48

VGK 63% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal23

9High-danger chances2

62All attempts (Corsi)50

Adjusted for score: VGK 61% · ANA 40%

Faceoffs · ANA won39%off53%neu59%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

VGK2 / 9 · 2.12 xG

ANA2 / 2 · 0.76 xG

Medium dangermid-range

VGK1 / 13 · 1.45 xG

ANA2 / 9 · 1.03 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

VGK0 / 40 · 0.59 xG

ANA0 / 39 · 0.70 xG

ANA went 2-for-2 from high danger on 0.76 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

VGK

3 G · 4.17 xG · -1.2

ANA

4 G · 2.48 xG · +1.5

012345

VGK finished -1.2 against expected, ANA +1.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

VGK

SNAP3/24

WRIST0/5

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/4

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/1

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/17

ANA

SNAP1/21

WRIST1/10

SLAP0/5

TIP IN1/2

BACKHAND0/0

DEFLECTED1/1

BAT0/0

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

POKE0/0

OTHER0/11

VGK

ANA

Off the rush

2 G on 25

2.62 xG

3 G on 23

1.26 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 5

1.05 xG

0 G on 2

0.08 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VGK went 3-for-24, ANA 1-for-21. ANA scored 3 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. Hill

VGK · 19/22 · .864

-0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/20.8-1.2

Medium2/91.0-1.0

Low0/390.7+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 · 28/31 · .903

+1.2

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/92.1+0.1

Medium1/131.4+0.5

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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

VGK

45 shots

Final

84 shots

ANA

39 shots

VGK ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK 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

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 25:13 on ice

M. Stone

#61 · R · VGK

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:29 on ice

R. Poehling

#25 · C · ANA

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:44 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Feb 1

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:03 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 models couldn't be closer: the Golden Knights are projected between 2.5 and 2.6 goals, and the Ducks land at 50% win probability. This is a literal coin flip.

The 5v5 picture shows two evenly matched teams. Vegas edges Anaheim in shot quality—54.0% expected goals to 52.0%—and both teams sit at exactly 52.0% in Corsi. Both clubs are running cold on their PDO markers: Vegas at 0.983, Anaheim at 0.981. That's meaningful regression upside for either team, assuming their underlying play doesn't deteriorate.

Vegas's offensive punch runs through Brandon Saad and Tomas Hertl. Saad is generating 0.91 expected goals per 60 minutes with 3 goals and 6 assists, converting at 4.1%—below his underlying shot quality. He's scored one high-danger goal. Hertl generates 0.88 xG/60 with 5 goals and 17 assists, also underperforming his 4.3% shooting rate. He's also notched one high-danger goal.

Anaheim counters with Beckett Sennecke and Cutter Gauthier. Sennecke leads in expected goals generation at 1.03 xG/60, backed by 20 goals and 19 assists with a 13.5% shooting percentage—well above expected. He's scored 8 high-danger goals. Gauthier is nearly as productive at 0.99 xG/60 with 25 goals and 16 assists, shooting 12.9%, but has converted only 2 high-danger chances.

Vegas's defensive weak point is Rasmus Andersson. Anaheim's is Mason McTavish. Whichever team better exploits its opponent's liability—through sustained pressure rather than isolated chances—likely escapes with a win.

The stats say this game could go either way. The setup suggests the winner will be the team that first converts its close chances.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 50%

50%

ANA

Model favorite

50%

VGK50ANA

ANA by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VGK 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

VGK← edge

edge →ANA

54.0%52.0%

52.0%52.0%

2.522.80

2.112.59

2.122.09

2.102.32

0.9830.981

VGK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 0.981) says VGK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

VGK

5-3-2

+5 GD · 2d rest

ANA

7-3-0

+3 GD · 2d rest

0.983

VGK 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.
The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

VGK

Expected in goal

A. Hill

2 days rest.852 last start

Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

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.

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

VGK

Brandon Saad3G 6A

0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh

Tomas Hertl5G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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