Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · SEA at ANA

Ducks hold off the Kraken

FinalTue, Feb 3

The verdict · earned

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

SEA 2 · ANA 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:56 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

Expected goals suggested a tight contest, but Anaheim's 4-2 victory masked how thoroughly Seattle wasted its opportunities. The Kraken underperformed their xG by 1.97 goals while L. Dostal (0.929 SV%, +1.97 saved) stole the game.

The metrics were close (4.46 xG favoring Anaheim, 3.97 for Seattle, a 53-47 split). Yet the Kraken generated higher-danger chances: 8 to Anaheim's 6. P. Grubauer allowed 27 of 31, underperforming by the same 1.97-goal margin. Seattle crashed the net effectively (4 rebound opportunities) but converted none. The Ducks did the same (3 rebounds) but capitalized on low-danger spots — two of four goals came from chances opposing goalies shouldn't lose.

Anaheim's efficiency came off the rush: three goals on 34 chances. Tye Kartye's wrist shot from a sharp angle (P3, 17:29) captured the game's texture — marginal space, decisive moments. Dostal's save percentage transformed a coin-flip game into a convincing win.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 3

SEA

ANA

Ducks hold off the Kraken

Chances 4.0 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

SEA

3.97

ANA

4.46

47% of the chances53%

The board read SEA 2, ANA 4. The chances read SEA 4.0, ANA 4.5.

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

Luck check

ANA

−0.5

goals above expected

ANA4.46 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

SEA3.97 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Kraken left 2.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 04:01ANAC. Gauthier0–1
P2 19:27ANAJ. Trouba0–2
P3 00:24ANAA. Killorn0–3
P3 13:54ANAR. Johnston0–4
P3 15:31SEAJ. Eberle1–4
P3 17:29SEAT. KartyePP2–4

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

Where the shots came from

SEA

43 shots

Final

93 shots

ANA

50 shots

SEA ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SEAANA

1 / 8

2.01 xG

High danger

1 / 6

1.73 xG

1 / 12

1.20 xG

Medium

1 / 20

2.15 xG

0 / 37

0.75 xG

Low

2 / 47

0.57 xG

High-danger looks: SEA 1 of 8, ANA 1 of 6.

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

In the net

L. Dostal

+2.0

ANA · 26/28

P. Grubauer

+0.5

SEA · 27/31

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks hold off the Kraken

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 7–11no goals

2ndshots 10–11

04:01ANAC. Gauthier(J. LaCombe, M. Granlund)0–1
19:27ANAJ. Trouba(J. Harkins, R. Poehling)0–2

3rdshots 11–9

00:24ANAA. Killorn(J. LaCombe, I. Moore)0–3
13:54ANAR. Johnston(J. Harkins, T. Washe)0–4
15:31SEAJ. Eberle(J. McCann, V. Dunn)1–4
17:29SEAT. Kartyepower play2–4

score reads SEA–ANA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.46

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.5

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.020

ANA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

56.2%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.97Expected goals4.46

ANA 53% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal31

8High-danger chances6

57All attempts (Corsi)73

Adjusted for score: SEA 47% · ANA 53%

Faceoffs · ANA won39%off56%neu38%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SEA1 / 8 · 2.01 xG

ANA1 / 6 · 1.73 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SEA1 / 12 · 1.20 xG

ANA1 / 20 · 2.15 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SEA0 / 37 · 0.75 xG

ANA2 / 47 · 0.57 xG

ANA went 2-for-47 from low danger on 0.57 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SEA

2 G · 3.97 xG · -2.0

ANA

4 G · 4.46 xG · -0.5

012345

SEA finished -2.0 against expected, ANA -0.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SEA

SNAP0/16

WRIST1/13

SLAP0/7

TIP IN1/6

BACKHAND0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/14

ANA

SNAP3/20

WRIST0/9

SLAP1/7

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/5

DEFLECTED0/3

OTHER0/23

SEA

ANA

Off the rush

1 G on 30

2.78 xG

3 G on 34

2.96 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.72 xG

0 G on 3

0.31 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SEA went 0-for-16, ANA 3-for-20. 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

P. Grubauer

SEA · 27/31 · .871

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.7+0.7

Medium1/202.1+1.1

Low2/470.6-1.4

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 · 26/28 · .929

+2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/82.0+1.0

Medium1/121.2+0.2

Low0/370.8+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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SEA

43 shots

Final

93 shots

ANA

50 shots

SEA ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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. LaCombe

#2 · D · ANA

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 23:19 on ice · +1

J. Harkins

#24 · C · ANA

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 11:11 on ice · +1

V. Dunn

#29 · D · SEA

0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:00 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Feb 3

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:08 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 a SEA 2.4 - 2.8 ANA game with the Ducks at 57% win probability. Anaheim's edge rests on territorial control and efficiency, though regression cuts both ways.

The Ducks dominate at 5v5, posting 52.0% xG and 52.0% Corsi versus Seattle's 46.0% and 45.0%. That translates to more shot volume and better positioning. That structural advantage anchors the model's lean.

But Anaheim's PDO is 0.981, Seattle's 1.011. The Ducks run cold and are due to regress upward; the Kraken run hot and regress downward. That math favors Anaheim.

Form tilts the same way. Anaheim is 8-2-0 in their last 10. One wrinkle: L. Dostal faces a back-to-back, so expect a backup or tired starter.

Key Players

Shane Wright (0.77 xG/60, 8G 10A, 4 high-danger goals, 10.4% shooting) anchors Seattle. Berkly Catton (0.68 xG/60, 6G 8A, 5 high-danger goals, 8.8% shooting) is steady secondary scoring.

Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20G 19A, 8 high-danger goals, 13.5% shooting) is Anaheim's dual threat. Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 25G 16A, 2 high-danger goals, 12.9% shooting) adds scoring depth with 25 goals.

Anaheim's structural edge aligns with favorable regression; Seattle's regression risk is a headwind.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 57%

57%

ANA

Model favorite

43%

57%

SEA50ANA

ANA by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.4–2.8 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

SEA← edge

edge →ANA

46.0%52.0%

45.0%52.0%

2.132.80

2.512.59

1.872.09

1.952.32

1.0110.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 0.981) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

SEA

5-4-1

+2 GD · 2d rest

ANA

8-2-0

+6 GD · 1d rest

1.011

SEA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.981

ANA 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 46.0%.
The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

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 46.0%.
The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
L. Dostal is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Ducks are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in 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

SEA

Expected in goal

J. Daccord

2 days rest.931 last start

Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA

Expected in goal

L. Dostal

back-to-back.903 last start

Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 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

SEA

Shane Wright8G 10A

0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh

Berkly Catton6G 8A

0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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