Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
Breakdown · WPG at ANA

Ducks edge the Jets in overtime

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 4 · ANA 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:45 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

The Ducks' 5-4 overtime win masks a lopsided dominance. Anaheim generated 57% of expected goals (6.82–5.07) and 16 high-danger chances to Winnipeg's 5, yet underperformed their xG by 1.82 goals. They dominated and still barely won.

Anaheim controlled 55% of shot attempts (40–33), with higher-quality opportunities: 0.097 expected goals per shot versus Winnipeg's 0.073. They scored twice from the rush on 32 chances and generated 14 rebound opportunities, converting 2. Winnipeg couldn't capitalize on high-danger plays (0/5) and surrendered two goals from low-danger spots where Dostal should have had both.

Hellebuyck (WPG) made 35/40 saves (0.875 SV%), posting a 1.82 goals-above-expected performance that kept Winnipeg alive. Winnipeg's rush attack was itself dangerous—4 goals on 37 chances—but Chris Kreider's backhander from the doorstep at 04:47 of overtime won it for Anaheim. Dostal (ANA) finished with a 0.879 SV%, saving 1.07 above expected.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Feb 27
WPG
4
ANA
5

Ducks edge the Jets in overtime

Chances 5.1 – 6.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
5.07
ANA
6.82
43% of the chances57%

The board read WPG 4, ANA 5. The chances read WPG 5.1, ANA 6.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
−1.8
goals above expected
ANA6.82 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG5.07 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:24WPGA. Iafallo1–0
  2. P2 02:25WPGG. VilardiPP2–0
  3. P2 19:19ANAJ. Trouba2–1
  4. P3 01:27WPGE. Salomonsson3–1
  5. P3 06:32ANAL. CarlssonPP3–2
  6. P3 09:59ANAP. Mintyukov3–3
  7. P3 16:50ANAR. Poehling3–4
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
54 shots
4
Final
117 shots
ANA
63 shots
5
WPG attackANA attack
WPG ANA Goal
54
shots · 4 in
63
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGANA
0 / 5
1.30 xG
High danger
3 / 16
4.08 xG
2 / 29
3.31 xG
Medium
1 / 19
2.13 xG
2 / 35
0.46 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.61 xG

The Jets went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. Hellebuyck
+1.8
WPG · 35/40
B+
L. Dostal
+1.1
ANA · 29/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks edge the Jets in overtime

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 9–7
  1. 01:24WPGA. Iafallo(C. Perfetti, D. Samberg)1–0
2ndshots 14–17
  1. 02:25WPGG. Vilardipower play(K. Connor, L. Stanley)2–0
  2. 19:19ANAJ. Trouba(T. Washe)2–1
3rdshots 7–11
  1. 01:27WPGE. Salomonsson(A. Lowry, A. Iafallo)3–1
  2. 06:32ANAL. Carlssonpower play(J. LaCombe, B. Sennecke)3–2
  3. 09:59ANAP. Mintyukov(B. Sennecke, D. Helleson)3–3
  4. 16:50ANAR. Poehling(A. Killorn, P. Mintyukov)3–4
  5. 18:38WPGK. Connorpower play(C. Perfetti, L. Stanley)4–4
OTshots 3–5
  1. 04:47ANAC. Kreider(B. Sennecke)4–5

score reads WPG–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.82
ANA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.8
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.014
ANA puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
50.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.07Expected goals6.82
ANA 57% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal40
5High-danger chances16
69All attempts (Corsi)70
Adjusted for score: WPG 45% · ANA 55%
Faceoffs · ANA won47%off44%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG0 / 5 · 1.30 xG
ANA3 / 16 · 4.08 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG2 / 29 · 3.31 xG
ANA1 / 19 · 2.13 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG2 / 35 · 0.46 xG
ANA1 / 35 · 0.61 xG

WPG went 2-for-35 from low danger on 0.46 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
4 G · 5.07 xG · -1.1
ANA
5 G · 6.82 xG · -1.8
012345678

WPG finished -1.1 against expected, ANA -1.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
SNAP3/22
WRIST1/15
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/7
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/15
ANA
SNAP3/26
WRIST0/9
SLAP1/10
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND1/10
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/7
WPG
ANA
Off the rush
4 G on 37
3.54 xG
2 G on 32
3.79 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 8
0.92 xG
2 G on 14
2.63 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: WPG went 3-for-22, ANA 3-for-26. WPG scored 4 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
C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 35/40 · .875
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/164.1+1.1
Medium1/192.1+1.1
Low1/350.6-0.4

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 · 29/33 · .879
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.3+1.3
Medium2/293.3+1.3
Low2/350.5-1.5

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

117 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WPG
54 shots
4
Final
117 shots
ANA
63 shots
5
WPG attackANA attack
WPG ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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
B. Sennecke
#45 · R · ANA
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 19:05 on ice · +2
L. Stanley
#64 · D · WPG
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 28:13 on ice
K. Connor
#81 · L · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 26:39 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Feb 27
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:44 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 favors Anaheim by a thin margin: 56% win probability with a projected score of 2.5 to 2.8. The edge belongs to the Ducks' underlying play, though regression risk looms for both sides.

Anaheim has earned this lean on recent form. The Ducks are 8-2-0 in their last 10, while Winnipeg sits at minus-10 in goal differential over the same stretch—a deterioration that signals the Jets' recent results don't match their fundamentals.

At 5v5, the gap widens. Anaheim controls shot quality at 52.0% xG% and 52.0% Corsi%, while Winnipeg lags at 48.0% and 49.0% respectively. That territorial tilt means the Ducks will spend the evening in the offensive zone.

The PDO numbers cut both ways. Winnipeg's 0.998 sits close to neutral, offering little predictive insight. Anaheim's 0.981 flags a team running cold, suggesting positive regression. If the Ducks' underlying work translates to shooting percentage, their margin grows.

Goaltending adds uncertainty. Both L. Dostal and E. Comrie face back-to-back games, creating the possibility of a tired starter or a backup appearance.

The forward matchups tilt Anaheim's way. Beckett Sennecke leads the Ducks' charge at 1.03 xG/60, having compiled 20 goals and 19 assists with 8 high-danger goals—a marker of both volume and quality. Cutter Gauthier supports at 0.99 xG/60, with 25 goals, 16 assists, and 2 high-danger goals.

Winnipeg counters with Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6 goals, 6 assists, 3 high-danger goals) and Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25 goals, 30 assists, 2 high-danger goals). Sennecke carries 8 high-danger goals to Niederreiter's 3, while his 13.5% shooting outpaces Niederreiter's 8.6%. Connor's 13.0% shooting is efficient, though Sennecke's rate edge and high-danger goal volume reflect a clear advantage for the Ducks in dangerous areas.

Colin Miller represents a weak point for Winnipeg's defense; Mason McTavish leads the Ducks' back end. Anaheim should control the game's flow—the Ducks' tilt in both xG% and Corsi% suggests the model's 56% lean reflects a durable edge.

Whether that converts to the projected 2.5-to-2.8 finish depends on shooting variance. Here, the PDO gap hints at Anaheim's favor: running cold at 0.981 against a neutral 0.998 suggests the Ducks are due for positive regression.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 56%
56%
ANA
Model favorite
44%
56%
WPG50ANA

ANA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.5–2.8 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
WPG← edge
edge →ANA
48.0%52.0%
49.0%52.0%
2.342.80
2.552.59
1.902.09
2.102.32
0.9980.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.981) says WPG has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
WPG
4-4-2
-10 GD · 1d rest
ANA
8-2-0
+6 GD · 1d rest
0.998
WPG 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 48.0%.
  • 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 48.0%.
  • 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.
  • E. Comrie 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 Jets are underwater at -10 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
WPG
Expected in goal
E. Comrie
back-to-back.913 last start
Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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.

ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
back-to-back.815 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
WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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