Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · ANA at VAN

Ducks hold off the Canucks

FinalTue, Mar 24

The verdict · earned

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

ANA 5 · VAN 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:51 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

Anaheim won 5–3, but the Canucks' underperformance of their expected goals by 1.15 signals the result hinged on execution, not dominance. Expected goals were nearly even (4.93–4.15), yet the Ducks' two-goal victory came from clinical finishing.

The Ducks buried 4 of 8 high-danger chances (50%), while the Canucks couldn't match that efficiency despite generating 7 HD opportunities of their own. On the rush, Anaheim scored 3 times on 32 attempts; Vancouver managed 2 of 26, a conversion rate that explained much of their shortfall.

Both goaltenders outperformed expected save percentages. L. Dostal (ANA) made 27 of 30 saves at 0.900 SV%, beating expected by 1.15. K. Lankinen (VAN) stopped 29 of 33 at 0.879 SV%, exceeding expected by 0.93. L. Dostal's extra margin proved decisive.

Vancouver's power play—2 goals on 11 shots—demonstrated clinical precision, but Anaheim's high-danger discipline and finish proved more impactful. J. Carlson (ANA) led with 3 assists in 24:01. F. Hronek (VAN) matched with 2 assists in 26:27, keeping Vancouver in range despite the underlying disadvantage.

Troy Terry's wrist shot from the wing (19:55, third) crystallized Anaheim's edge: a team that capitalized on its chances when it mattered most.

Final: ANA 5 – VAN 3

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 24

ANA

VAN

Ducks hold off the Canucks

Chances 4.9 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

ANA

4.93

VAN

4.15

54% of the chances46%

The board read ANA 5, VAN 3. The chances read ANA 4.9, VAN 4.2.

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

Luck check

ANA

+0.1

goals above expected

ANA4.93 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN4.15 expected · 3 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 05:45VANJ. DeBruskPP0–1
P2 05:26ANAA. Killorn1–1
P2 07:50ANAM. Granlund2–1
P2 13:13VANB. BoeserPP2–2
P3 01:01ANAM. GranlundPP3–2
P3 02:22VAND. O'Connor3–3
P3 05:45ANAM. McTavish4–3

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

ANA

49 shots

Final

98 shots

VAN

49 shots

ANA VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

ANAVAN

4 / 8

2.24 xG

High danger

1 / 7

1.58 xG

0 / 18

1.98 xG

Medium

2 / 18

1.91 xG

1 / 34

0.71 xG

Low

0 / 35

0.66 xG

The Ducks buried 4 of 8 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

B+

L. Dostal

+1.1

ANA · 27/30

B+

K. Lankinen

+0.9

VAN · 29/33

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks hold off the Canucks

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 11–7

05:45VANJ. DeBruskpower play(E. Pettersson, F. Hronek)0–1

2ndshots 14–12

05:26ANAA. Killorn(J. Carlson, B. Sennecke)1–1
07:50ANAM. Granlund(L. Carlsson, J. Carlson)2–1
13:13VANB. Boeserpower play(F. Hronek, E. Pettersson)2–2

3rdshots 9–11

01:01ANAM. Granlundpower play(C. Kreider, J. Carlson)3–2
02:22VAND. O'Connor(E. Kane)3–3
05:45ANAM. McTavish(J. LaCombe, A. Killorn)4–3
19:55ANAT. Terryempty net(C. Kreider, L. Carlsson)5–3

score reads ANA–VAN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.93

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.033

ANA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.93Expected goals4.15

ANA 54% of the chance quality

34Shots on goal30

8High-danger chances7

60All attempts (Corsi)60

Adjusted for score: ANA 50% · VAN 50%

Faceoffs · VAN won72%off65%neu41%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

ANA4 / 8 · 2.24 xG

VAN1 / 7 · 1.58 xG

Medium dangermid-range

ANA0 / 18 · 1.98 xG

VAN2 / 18 · 1.91 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

ANA1 / 34 · 0.71 xG

VAN0 / 35 · 0.66 xG

ANA went 0-for-18 from medium danger on 1.98 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

ANA

5 G · 4.93 xG · +0.1

VAN

3 G · 4.15 xG · -1.1

0123456

ANA finished +0.1 against expected, VAN -1.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

ANA

WRIST1/32

SNAP2/5

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/1

BACKHAND1/2

BAT1/2

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/11

VAN

WRIST1/7

SNAP2/29

SLAP0/1

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/3

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/11

ANA

VAN

Off the rush

3 G on 32

3.28 xG

2 G on 26

2.35 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 6

1.02 xG

1 G on 9

1.20 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 1-for-32, VAN 1-for-7. ANA scored 3 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 · 27/30 · .900

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.6+0.6

Medium2/181.9-0.1

Low0/350.7+0.7

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

K. Lankinen

VAN · 29/33 · .879

+0.9

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger4/82.2-1.8

Medium0/182.0+2.0

Low1/340.7-0.3

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

98 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

ANA

49 shots

Final

98 shots

VAN

49 shots

ANA VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, VAN 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. Carlson

#74 · D · ANA

0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 24:01 on ice · +2

F. Hronek

#17 · D · VAN

0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 26:27 on ice · -3

L. Carlsson

#91 · C · ANA

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 19:43 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 24

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:48 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 says pick the Ducks—but barely. At 55% win probability and a projected 2.8-2.5 scoreline, this is virtually a pick'em.

Anaheim owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Ducks post 52.0% xG and 52.0% Corsi, meaning they'll control possession and create the better scoring chances. That's a legitimate edge. Vancouver's 44.0% xG is hardly elite, and a 46.0% Corsi suggests they'll spend time chasing the play.

But recent form muddies this picture. Anaheim has gone 6-3-1 in their last 10 games—a genuine hot stretch. Vancouver, by contrast, has collapsed on defense, posting -12 goal differential over the same span. Yet both teams are running cold by PDO: the Ducks at 0.981, the Canucks at 0.974. That's luck working against them, and luck reverts. In a close game, regression is a wildcard.

Vancouver's rest advantage might matter more than the underlying numbers suggest. The Canucks come in on three days off; Anaheim on one. More significantly, V. Husso faces a back-to-back. Whether Vancouver starts their backup or runs a fatigued Husso, it's a leverage point.

The game likely hinges on Anaheim's elite shot creators. Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20G 19A, 8 HD goals, 13.5% shooting) and Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 25G 16A, 2 HD goals, 12.9% shooting) generate chances at a high rate. If Vancouver's defense can't contain them, Anaheim wins. If the Canucks can suffocate their top threats, they'll have the fresher legs to exploit it late.

Vancouver loses Filip Chytil to injury—a significant blow given his 1.03 xG/60 output. Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting) becomes their primary option, and he's solid but not a match for Sennecke or Gauthier.

This is as close as hockey gets. Back the Ducks' possession edge, but don't be shocked if Vancouver's desperation and rest turn a coin flip into an upset.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 55%

55%

ANA

Model favorite

55%

45%

ANA50VAN

ANA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score ANA 2.8–2.5 VAN; 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 →VAN

52.0%44.0%

52.0%46.0%

2.802.22

2.592.81

2.091.60

2.322.56

0.9810.974

ANA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.974) says ANA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

ANA

6-3-1

+4 GD · 1d rest

VAN

3-6-1

-12 GD · 3d rest

0.981

ANA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.974

VAN 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 44.0%.
The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
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 44.0%.
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 are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
The Canucks are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
The Canucks have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

ANA

Expected in goal

V. Husso

back-to-back.828 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.

VAN

Expected in goal

K. Lankinen

3 days rest.900 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page