Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · BUF at ANA

Ducks run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTSun, Mar 22

The verdict · earned

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

BUF 5 · ANA 6

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:31 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

Buffalo scored 5 goals on 3.63 expected goals—nearly 1.4 more than the numbers predicted—and still lost 6-5 in overtime. Anaheim simply controlled the game: 60% of 5v5 expected goals (5.52 to 3.63), 12 high-danger chances to Buffalo's 5, and superior shot quality (0.089 xG per attempt to 0.055).

The margins tell the story. Buffalo's high-danger efficiency was clean—2 of 5 chances (40%)—but Anaheim's volume overwhelmed it. Both teams scored twice from low-danger areas where goalies should make the save. Both scored 4 off the rush, though Buffalo's came from 28 chances and Anaheim's from 36. Husso allowed 1.4 goals beyond expectation, yet Anaheim's depth ensured the win. Troy Terry's backhander at 01:29 of overtime put it away.

Three Stars

#26 R. Dahlin (BUF) — 2A in 25:18
#2 J. LaCombe (ANA) — 1G, 1A in 23:56
#25 O. Power (BUF) — 1G, 1A in 21:01

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Mar 22

BUF

ANA

Ducks run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.6 – 5.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

BUF

3.63

ANA

5.52

40% of the chances60%

The board read BUF 5, ANA 6. The chances read BUF 3.6, ANA 5.5.

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

Luck check

ANA

+0.5

goals above expected

ANA5.52 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF3.63 expected · 5 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

P1 03:36BUFA. Tuch1–0
P1 09:27ANAC. KreiderPP1–1
P1 12:23ANAJ. LaCombePP1–2
P1 17:14BUFJ. Doan2–2
P2 02:35ANAB. Sennecke2–3
P2 15:40ANAT. Terry2–4
P3 04:40BUFJ. Quinn3–4

+4 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

BUF

52 shots

Final

105 shots

ANA

53 shots

BUF ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

BUFANA

2 / 5

1.05 xG

High danger

2 / 12

3.02 xG

1 / 18

1.82 xG

Medium

2 / 18

1.88 xG

2 / 43

0.76 xG

Low

2 / 32

0.62 xG

The Ducks buried 2 of 12 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A. Lyon

−0.5

BUF · 27/33

D-

V. Husso

−1.4

ANA · 24/29

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks run the Sabres 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 11–14

03:36BUFA. Tuch(O. Power)1–0
09:27ANAC. Kreiderpower play(L. Carlsson)1–1
12:23ANAJ. LaCombepower play(M. McTavish, B. Sennecke)1–2
17:14BUFJ. Doan(N. Ostlund, B. Byram)2–2

2ndshots 9–3

02:35ANAB. Sennecke(J. LaCombe)2–3
15:40ANAT. Terry(T. Washe, O. Zellweger)2–4

3rdshots 9–15

04:40BUFJ. Quinn(R. Dahlin, Z. Benson)3–4
10:05BUFO. Power(R. McLeod)4–4
11:37BUFZ. Benson(R. Dahlin, B. Malenstyn)5–4
18:16ANAM. Granlundpower play(C. Kreider, L. Carlsson)5–5

OTshots 0–1

01:29ANAT. Terry5–6

score reads BUF–ANA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.52

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.021

ANA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

48.4%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.63Expected goals5.52

ANA 60% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal33

5High-danger chances12

66All attempts (Corsi)62

Adjusted for score: BUF 53% · ANA 47%

Faceoffs · ANA won40%off53%neu26%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

BUF2 / 5 · 1.05 xG

ANA2 / 12 · 3.02 xG

Medium dangermid-range

BUF1 / 18 · 1.82 xG

ANA2 / 18 · 1.88 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

BUF2 / 43 · 0.76 xG

ANA2 / 32 · 0.62 xG

ANA went 2-for-32 from low danger on 0.62 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

BUF

5 G · 3.63 xG · +1.4

ANA

6 G · 5.52 xG · +0.5

01234567

BUF finished +1.4 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

BUF

SNAP4/25

TIP IN0/9

WRIST1/7

SLAP0/9

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/0

POKE0/0

OTHER0/14

ANA

SNAP2/24

TIP IN0/7

WRIST2/8

SLAP0/4

BACKHAND2/7

DEFLECTED0/2

POKE0/1

OTHER0/9

BUF

ANA

Off the rush

4 G on 28

2.11 xG

4 G on 36

4.36 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.69 xG

0 G on 4

0.40 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: BUF went 4-for-25, ANA 2-for-24. BUF 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

A. Lyon

BUF · 27/33 · .818

-0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/123.0+1.0

Medium2/181.9-0.1

Low2/320.6-1.4

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

V. Husso

ANA · 24/29 · .828

-1.4

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.1-0.9

Medium1/181.8+0.8

Low2/430.8-1.2

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

105 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

BUF

52 shots

Final

105 shots

ANA

53 shots

BUF ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF 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

R. Dahlin

#26 · D · BUF

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 25:18 on ice · +1

J. LaCombe

#2 · D · ANA

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:56 on ice

O. Power

#25 · D · BUF

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:01 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Mar 22

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:29 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 2.6 - 2.8 contest with the Ducks favored at 54% win probability—essentially a pick'em.

Buffalo is the hotter team, riding a 9-1-0 streak. That run masks a season-long struggle: the Sabres control only 50.0% of expected goals and 49.0% of shot attempts at five-on-five, both below league average. They're not outplaying their peers. Anaheim, meanwhile, drives 52.0% xG and 52.0% Corsi—a sign they own most puck touches and establish territorial advantage.

The underlying luck index cuts hard against the Ducks: their 0.981 PDO signals that their goal-scoring and save percentages have underperformed their actual play, a gap that typically corrects itself. Buffalo sits at 1.020—essentially the reverse—which means their recent success leans on finishing and goaltending luck the Sabres won't sustain.

Both starters take a back-to-back load: L. Dostal for Anaheim, U. Luukkonen for Buffalo. Either coach might start a backup or lean on a tired starter.

The Ducks must build their game plan around Jason Zucker, whose 1.07 expected goals per 60 minutes and 15.1% shot conversion rate (6 high-danger goals in 14 total) signal finishing prowess from prime chances. Josh Doan is the secondary scoring threat. The Sabres, meanwhile, must contain Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20 goals) and Cutter Gauthier, who has scored 25 goals at a 12.9% rate despite just 2 from high-danger spots—evidence he's lethal from mid-range and on clean looks.

Defensively, Buffalo's weak link is Jack Quinn; for Anaheim, it's Mason McTavish.

Players to Watch

BUF

Jason Zucker — 1.07 xG/60, 14G 14A, 6 HD goals, 15.1% shooting
Josh Doan — 1.01 xG/60, 15G 18A, 2 HD goals, 11.5% shooting

ANA

Beckett Sennecke — 1.03 xG/60, 20G 19A, 8 HD goals, 13.5% shooting
Cutter Gauthier — 0.99 xG/60, 25G 16A, 2 HD goals, 12.9% shooting

The game rides on territorial play and finishing execution. Anaheim has the possession edge and the regression-to-mean tailwind in its favor. Buffalo counters with recent run and the momentum of a 9-1-0 pace. The model's near-even call is sound.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 54%

54%

ANA

Model favorite

46%

54%

BUF50ANA

ANA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.6–2.8 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

BUF← edge

edge →ANA

50.0%52.0%

49.0%52.0%

2.552.80

2.552.59

2.352.09

1.902.32

1.0200.981

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.020 vs 0.981) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

BUF

9-1-0

+20 GD · 1d rest

ANA

5-4-1

-1 GD · 1d rest

1.020

BUF 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 drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

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.
U. Luukkonen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (9-1-0 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

BUF

Expected in goal

U. Luukkonen

back-to-back.963 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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.967 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

BUF

Jason Zucker14G 14A

1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh

Josh Doan15G 18A

1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% 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