Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
Breakdown · COL at ANA

S. Wedgewood stands tall as the Avalanche edge the Ducks

The verdict · stolen

The Avalanche stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.82–3.82 and won anyway.

COL 5 · ANA 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:54 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 Avalanche stole this one: Colorado won 5-1 despite Anaheim controlling 58% of expected goals, winning high-danger chances 7-2, and controlling 52% of shot attempts.

S. Wedgewood was the architect of the theft. He stopped 27 of 28 shots (0.964 SV%), outperforming his xG allowance by 2.82 goals—more than the Ducks' margin of defeat. L. Dostal, meanwhile, gave up 2.18 goals above expected on a 26-shot workload, which on that volume is damning.

The turning point was Parker Kelly's wrist shot from the high slot at 10:06 of the third period. From there, Colorado was lethal in transition—four goals on 26 rush chances—while Anaheim went scoreless on high-danger chances despite creating seven of them.

Colorado's finish was ruthless: four goals on 26 rush chances and two low-danger goals that the opposing goalie should have stopped. Anaheim crashed the net effectively, generating five rebound opportunities, but went 0-for-7 on the chances that mattered most.

Variance entirely explained the scoreboard. The Ducks underperformed their xG by 2.82 goals; the Avalanche overperformed by 2.18, converting chances at a rate they shouldn't have. Wedgewood's 2.82-goal outperformance was the decisive swing.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 3
COL
5
ANA
1

S. Wedgewood stands tall as the Avalanche edge the Ducks

Chances 2.8 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Ducks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
COL
2.82
ANA
3.82
42% of the chances58%

The board read COL 5, ANA 1. The chances read COL 2.8, ANA 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
+2.2
goals above expected
COL2.82 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.82 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Avalanche scored 2.2 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 11:33COLC. Makar1–0
  2. P1 14:05COLM. NecasPP2–0
  3. P2 04:50ANAC. Gauthier2–1
  4. P2 15:03COLP. Kelly3–1
  5. P3 04:35COLG. Landeskog4–1
  6. P3 10:06COLP. Kelly5–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
COL
41 shots
5
Final
85 shots
ANA
44 shots
1
COL attackANA attack
COL ANA Goal
41
shots · 5 in
44
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
COLANA
0 / 2
0.54 xG
High danger
0 / 7
1.63 xG
3 / 14
1.43 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.55 xG
2 / 37
0.84 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.64 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Wedgewood
+2.8
COL · 27/28
F
L. Dostal
−2.2
ANA · 21/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

S. Wedgewood stands tall as the Avalanche edge the Ducks

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 7–8
  1. 11:33COLC. Makar(V. Nichushkin, B. Nelson)1–0
  2. 14:05COLM. Necaspower play(B. Nelson, C. Makar)2–0
2ndshots 10–8
  1. 04:50ANAC. Gauthier(J. LaCombe)2–1
  2. 15:03COLP. Kelly(C. Makar, J. Drury)3–1
3rdshots 9–12
  1. 04:35COLG. Landeskog(N. MacKinnon)4–1
  2. 10:06COLP. Kelly(J. Drury, B. Kulak)5–1

score reads COL–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.82
COL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.077
COL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
48.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.82Expected goals3.82
ANA 58% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal28
2High-danger chances7
53All attempts (Corsi)57
Adjusted for score: COL 43% · ANA 57%
Faceoffs · ANA won65%off55%neu30%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
COL0 / 2 · 0.54 xG
ANA0 / 7 · 1.63 xG
Medium dangermid-range
COL3 / 14 · 1.43 xG
ANA1 / 13 · 1.55 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
COL2 / 37 · 0.84 xG
ANA0 / 37 · 0.64 xG

ANA went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.63 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
COL
5 G · 2.82 xG · +2.2
ANA
1 G · 3.82 xG · -2.8
0123456

COL finished +2.2 against expected, ANA -2.8.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
COL
SNAP2/13
WRIST1/11
SLAP2/10
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED0/2
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/12
ANA
SNAP1/21
WRIST0/13
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
BACKHAND0/1
OTHER0/13
COL
ANA
Off the rush
4 G on 26
1.81 xG
0 G on 27
2.67 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.52 xG
0 G on 5
0.92 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: COL went 2-for-13, ANA 1-for-21. COL 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
S. Wedgewood
COL · 27/28 · .964
+2.8
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.6+1.6
Medium1/131.6+0.6
Low0/370.6+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

L. Dostal
ANA · 21/26 · .808
-2.2
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.5+0.5
Medium3/141.4-1.6
Low2/370.8-1.2

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
COL
41 shots
5
Final
85 shots
ANA
44 shots
1
COL attackANA attack
COL ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — COL 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
C. Makar
#8 · D · COL
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 22:26 on ice · +2
B. Nelson
#11 · C · COL
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:53 on ice · +1
P. Kelly
#17 · C · COL
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 16:27 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:30 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 2.8 goals for Colorado, 2.7 for Anaheim, with the Avalanche at 52% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Anaheim arrives hot. The Ducks are 8-2-0 in their last 10, a pace that matters when everything else is tight. Colorado carries rest advantage—three days versus Anaheim's one—which typically tilts close games.

Underlying metrics still favor the Avalanche. Colorado generates 57.0% of expected goals at 5v5 versus Anaheim's 52.0%, and controls 57.0% of shot attempts to Anaheim's 52.0%. If this plays to form, Colorado structures the game in their favor.

But PDO tells the opposite story. The Avalanche sit at 1.021—running hot, which means regression often follows. Anaheim is at 0.981—running cold and due for positive bounce. In a coin flip, PDO matters.

L. Dostal is on a back-to-back. Either a backup starts or a tired starter plays; either way, Anaheim carries uncertainty in net.

For Colorado, Artturi Lehkonen is the engine: 1.11 xG per 60 minutes, 18 goals, 22 assists, 6 hard-chance goals on 14.9% shooting. Ross Colton sits just below at 1.10 xG per 60, with 7 goals, 15 assists, and 1 hard-chance goal on 4.9% shooting—suggesting he's been starved of clean chances.

Anaheim counters with Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG per 60, 20 goals, 19 assists, 8 hard-chance goals, 13.5% shooting) and Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG per 60, 25 goals, 16 assists, 2 hard-chance goals, 12.9% shooting). Gauthier's volume at 25 goals comes alongside an assists-to-goals ratio suggesting secondary scoring and potential empty-net inflation.

The edge in underlying play belongs to Colorado. The edge in rest belongs to Colorado. Anaheim owns recent form. On paper, that's Colorado's night. But Anaheim's hot streak and Dostal uncertainty create real doubt. That's a genuine coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 52%
52%
COL
Model favorite
52%
48%
COL50ANA

COL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score COL 2.8–2.7 ANA; 17% 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
COL← edge
edge →ANA
57.0%52.0%
57.0%52.0%
3.032.80
2.302.59
2.632.09
1.562.32
1.0210.981

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 0.981) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
COL
5-5-0
-2 GD · 3d rest
ANA
8-2-0
+5 GD · 1d rest
1.021
COL 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 Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — 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.
  • The Avalanche have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
COL
Expected in goal
M. Blackwood
3 days rest.933 last start
Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
back-to-back.941 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
COL
Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
Ross Colton7G 15A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% 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