Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · ANA at WPG

Ducks run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Mar 10

The verdict · earned

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

ANA 4 · WPG 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:41 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 won 4-1, but Winnipeg's frustration—having more high-danger chances yet fewer goals—best captures the evening's mismatch.

At 5v5, Anaheim controlled 67% of expected goals (4.72–2.33)—the result of superior volume (35 attempts to 13) and quality (0.077 xG/shot versus 0.057). The Ducks should have won bigger, yet underperformed their xG by 0.72 goals. Winnipeg underperformed by 1.33—a critical miss in the high-danger zone.

Winnipeg held the high-danger advantage, 5–4. But it converted zero of five; Anaheim cashed 50%, going 2-for-4. L. Dostal's perfect save percentage on high-danger attempts (100%, five stops) starved Winnipeg of its most dangerous looks. He stopped 1.3 goals above expected.

C. Hellebuyck saved 1.7 goals above expected, an outstanding salvage operation. Yet the Ducks' shot-quality advantage proved decisive—Anaheim was clinical where it counted.

Beyond the high-danger zones, Anaheim's rush attack proved lethal. The Ducks scored twice on 32 rush chances.

The turning point came early in the third: Jackson LaCombe's wrist shot from the slot (19:34, P3).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 10

ANA

WPG

Ducks run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.7 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

ANA

4.72

WPG

2.33

67% of the chances33%

The board read ANA 4, WPG 1. The chances read ANA 4.7, WPG 2.3.

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

Luck check

ANA

−0.7

goals above expected

ANA4.72 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

WPG2.33 expected · 1 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

P2 05:04WPGM. Barron0–1
P2 06:24ANAT. Washe1–1
P2 06:38ANAR. Poehling2–1
P2 08:08ANAA. Killorn3–1
P3 19:34ANAJ. LaCombeEN4–1

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

Where the shots came from

ANA

48 shots

Final

77 shots

WPG

29 shots

ANA WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

ANAWPG

2 / 4

1.91 xG

High danger

0 / 5

1.02 xG

1 / 23

2.23 xG

Medium

1 / 9

0.89 xG

1 / 34

0.58 xG

Low

0 / 27

0.42 xG

The Jets went 0 for 5 from the slot.

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

In the net

C. Hellebuyck

+1.7

WPG · 31/34

B+

L. Dostal

+1.3

ANA · 12/13

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 8–2no goals

2ndshots 20–5

05:04WPGM. Barron(E. Salomonsson, C. Perfetti)0–1
06:24ANAT. Washe(J. Harkins, R. Gudas)1–1
06:38ANAR. Poehling(A. Killorn, J. LaCombe)2–1
08:08ANAA. Killorn(R. Poehling)3–1

3rdshots 7–6

19:34ANAJ. LaCombeempty net(J. Trouba)4–1

score reads ANA–WPG

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.72

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.7

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.041

ANA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

59.8%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.72Expected goals2.33

ANA 67% of the chance quality

35Shots on goal13

4High-danger chances5

61All attempts (Corsi)41

Adjusted for score: ANA 55% · WPG 45%

Faceoffs · WPG won64%off43%neu69%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

ANA2 / 4 · 1.91 xG

WPG0 / 5 · 1.02 xG

Medium dangermid-range

ANA1 / 23 · 2.23 xG

WPG1 / 9 · 0.89 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

ANA1 / 34 · 0.58 xG

WPG0 / 27 · 0.42 xG

ANA went 1-for-23 from medium danger on 2.23 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

ANA

4 G · 4.72 xG · -0.7

WPG

1 G · 2.33 xG · -1.3

0123456

ANA finished -0.7 against expected, WPG -1.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

ANA

WRIST2/19

SLAP0/9

SNAP1/9

TIP IN1/9

DEFLECTED0/1

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/13

WPG

WRIST0/11

SLAP0/6

SNAP0/6

TIP IN1/5

DEFLECTED0/1

BACKHAND0/0

OTHER0/12

ANA

WPG

Off the rush

2 G on 32

2.26 xG

0 G on 22

1.92 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.47 xG

0 G on 2

0.19 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 2-for-19, WPG 0-for-11. ANA scored 2 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

L. Dostal

ANA · 12/13 · .923

+1.3

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.0+1.0

Medium1/90.9-0.1

Low0/270.4+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

C. Hellebuyck

WPG · 31/34 · .912

+1.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/41.9-0.1

Medium1/232.2+1.2

Low1/340.6-0.4

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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

ANA

48 shots

Final

77 shots

WPG

29 shots

ANA WPG GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, WPG 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

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 27:21 on ice · +2

A. Killorn

#17 · L · ANA

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:50 on ice · +2

R. Poehling

#25 · C · ANA

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 16:06 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 10

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:39 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 2.7–2.6 WPG game with the Ducks at 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Anaheim owns the underlying play. The Ducks carry 52.0% 5v5 xG and 52.0% Corsi, territorial advantages over Winnipeg's 48.0% and 49.0%. Yet Winnipeg's PDO (0.998) sits comfortably; Anaheim's (0.981) signals bad luck due for reversal. Close matches often hinge on goaltending, and here V. Husso faces a back-to-back—watch for either a backup or a tired starter.

Beckett Sennecke drives Anaheim's attack at 1.03 xG/60 and 20G with 13.5% shooting; his 8 hard-damage goals show actual finishing. Cutter Gauthier sits closer to game-breaking (25G, 0.99 xG/60, 12.9% shooting), though his hard-damage output lags at 2.

Winnipeg counters with Kyle Connor's playmaking—25G, 30A, 0.83 xG/60—but only 2 hard-damage goals at 13.0% shooting, limiting upside. Nino Niederreiter offers the team's sharpest edge: 0.87 xG/60, 6G, 8.6% shooting, and 3 hard-damage goals.

The Ducks' efficiency edge is real, but Winnipeg has caught fire on variance. In close matches, either team's luck could swing the result.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 52%

52%

ANA

Model favorite

52%

48%

ANA50WPG

ANA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.7–2.6 WPG; 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 →WPG

52.0%48.0%

52.0%49.0%

2.802.34

2.592.55

2.091.90

2.322.10

0.9810.998

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

ANA

7-3-0

+1 GD · 1d rest

WPG

5-2-3

-3 GD · 2d rest

0.981

ANA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.998

WPG 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.
V. Husso is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

ANA

Expected in goal

V. Husso

back-to-back.912 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.

WPG

Expected in goal

C. Hellebuyck

2 days rest.913 last start

Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page