Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Ottawa Senators sweater
← Sat, Mar 14 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at OTT

Senators shut out the Ducks, 2-0

FinalSat, Mar 14
ANAAnaheim Ducks0OTTOttawa Senators2
The verdict · earned

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

ANA 0 · OTT 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:02 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 competitive game — the Ducks generated 4.65, close to the Senators' 5.40. The 2-0 scoreline tells a different story: a shutout in a contest the underlying metrics called nearly even. Goaltending explains the chasm.

L. Ullmark was perfect. The Senators netminder posted 24/24 saves (1.000 SV%, +4.65 vs expected), a line that says he turned high-danger chances into unanswerable chances at a rate the model didn't anticipate. V. Husso faced 28 shots, stopped 26 (0.929 SV%, +3.40), and performed well — yet the Ducks scored zero.

Both offenses cratered on high-danger opportunities. The Senators managed 13 and converted none; the Ducks had 10 and also finished 0-for. The difference: only one goalie had to be flawless.

The Senators' goals came from the high-danger areas they did generate. T. Chabot's wrist shot from the high slot (P2, 09:21) broke the scoreless tie; M. Amadio added a second later. S. Pinto orchestrated much of the offensive movement with two assists in 17:19.

The Ducks found dangerous looks — 10 high-danger chances is a respectable output — but couldn't beat Ullmark. That won't happen often. Neither will a goalie put up a 1.000 SV%. This game existed in the gap between those two truths.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 14
ANA
0
OTT
2

Senators shut out the Ducks, 2-0

Chances 4.7 – 5.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
4.65
OTT
5.40
46% of the chances54%

The board read ANA 0, OTT 2. The chances read ANA 4.7, OTT 5.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
OTT
−3.4
goals above expected
OTT5.40 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA4.65 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks left 4.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 03:54OTTM. Amadio0–1
  2. P2 09:21OTTT. ChabotSH0–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
43 shots
0
Final
86 shots
OTT
43 shots
2
ANA attackOTT attack
ANA OTT Goal
43
shots · 0 in
43
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANAOTT
0 / 10
2.52 xG
High danger
0 / 13
3.39 xG
0 / 15
1.65 xG
Medium
2 / 15
1.65 xG
0 / 36
0.48 xG
Low
0 / 29
0.36 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 10 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
L. Ullmark
+4.7
OTT · 24/24
A+
V. Husso
+3.4
ANA · 26/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Senators shut out the Ducks, 2-0

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 5–10no goals
    2ndshots 8–13
    1. 03:54OTTM. Amadio(S. Pinto, N. Cousins)0–1
    2. 09:21OTTT. Chabotshorthanded(S. Pinto)0–2
    3rdshots 11–5no goals

      score reads ANA–OTT

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      5.40
      OTT chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −3.4
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.035
      OTT puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      48.3%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      4.65Expected goals5.40
      OTT 54% of the chance quality
      24Shots on goal28
      10High-danger chances13
      61All attempts (Corsi)57
      Adjusted for score: ANA 56% · OTT 44%
      Faceoffs · OTT won50%off21%neu50%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      ANA0 / 10 · 2.52 xG
      OTT0 / 13 · 3.39 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      ANA0 / 15 · 1.65 xG
      OTT2 / 15 · 1.65 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      ANA0 / 36 · 0.48 xG
      OTT0 / 29 · 0.36 xG

      OTT went 0-for-13 from high danger on 3.39 expected goals — 3.4 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      ANA
      0 G · 4.65 xG · -4.7
      OTT
      2 G · 5.40 xG · -3.4
      0123456

      ANA finished -4.7 against expected, OTT -3.4.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      ANA
      WRIST0/23
      BACKHAND0/7
      TIP IN0/3
      SNAP0/6
      SLAP0/3
      BAT0/1
      POKE0/0
      DEFLECTED0/0
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      OTHER0/18
      OTT
      WRIST2/21
      BACKHAND0/3
      TIP IN0/6
      SNAP0/3
      SLAP0/5
      BAT0/2
      POKE0/1
      DEFLECTED0/1
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      OTHER0/14
      ANA
      OTT
      Off the rush
      0 G on 23
      2.05 xG
      2 G on 27
      3.36 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 10
      2.20 xG
      0 G on 5
      1.07 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-23, OTT 2-for-21. OTT 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
      V. Husso
      ANA · 26/28 · .929
      +3.4
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/133.4+3.4
      Medium2/151.6-0.3
      Low0/290.4+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

      L. Ullmark
      OTT · 24/24 · 1.000
      +4.7
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/102.5+2.5
      Medium0/151.6+1.6
      Low0/360.5+0.5

      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

      86 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      ANA
      43 shots
      0
      Final
      86 shots
      OTT
      43 shots
      2
      ANA attackOTT attack
      ANA OTT Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, OTT 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
      S. Pinto
      #12 · C · OTT
      0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 17:19 on ice · +2
      T. Chabot
      #72 · D · OTT
      1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 27:24 on ice · +2
      M. Amadio
      #22 · R · OTT
      1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 16:12 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Mar 14
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:01 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 backs Ottawa at 55% win probability in a projected 2.5–2.8 goal spread. That's a slim edge, but built on a repeatable advantage: the Senators dominate even-strength play.

      Ottawa's 56.0% 5v5 expected goals share crushes Anaheim's 52.0%. The Corsi numbers reinforce it: 53.0% for Ottawa, 52.0% for Anaheim. In shot quality and volume both, Ottawa controls the ice. But there's a variance story in play. Anaheim's 0.981 PDO—goals per shot and save percentage combined—sits well below 1.00, signaling a team running cold and due for positive regression. Ottawa at 0.993 is closer to neutral. When the Ducks' luck returns, the model's margin compresses.

      Offensively, Anaheim leans on two threats. Beckett Sennecke's 1.03 xG per 60 minutes is backed by 20G and 19A; he's scored 8 high-danger goals on 13.5% shooting. Cutter Gauthier, at 25G with 0.99 xG/60 and 12.9% shooting, is the secondary source. Ottawa has to account for both.

      But Ottawa's tier is cleaner. Brady Tkachuk leads the sheet at 1.19 xG/60 with 11G and 20A—volume production at 7.5% shooting—plus 2 high-danger goals. Dylan Cozens adds secondary punch: 1.00 xG/60, 13G, and 15A on 9.5% shooting. Together they generate more offense than Anaheim's best pair.

      Defensively, Mason McTavish is the soft spot for Anaheim; Nick Jensen plays the same role for Ottawa. Both teams generate 0% of their goals from high-danger chances and 0% from rebounds—statistical noise that will correct. When it does, volume determines who runs the variance game.

      The Senators' edge is thin. It's also sound.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      OTT 55%
      55%
      OTT
      Model favorite
      45%
      55%
      ANA50OTT

      OTT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score ANA 2.5–2.8 OTT; 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 →OTT
      52.0%56.0%
      52.0%53.0%
      2.802.66
      2.592.12
      2.092.18
      2.321.99
      0.9810.993

      OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.993) says OTT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      ANA
      7-3-0
      +3 GD · 2d rest
      OTT
      6-2-2
      +9 GD · 3d rest
      0.981
      ANA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.993
      OTT PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
      Regression watch
      • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
      • 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
      L. Dostal
      2 days rest.815 last start
      Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 GSAx this season

      No completed game on file for this club yet.

      OTT
      Expected in goal
      L. Ullmark
      3 days rest.870 last start
      Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
      OTT
      Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
      1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
      Dylan Cozens13G 15A
      1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page