Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Wed, Apr 1 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at SJS

Sharks steal one from the Ducks against the run of play

FinalWed, Apr 1
ANAAnaheim Ducks3SJSSan Jose Sharks4
The verdict · stolen

The Sharks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.71–2.59 and won anyway.

ANA 3 · SJS 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:52 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 Sharks stole this one. San Jose scored four goals on a 41% xG performance. Anaheim controlled 59% of expected goals and lost 4–3. Pure execution and goaltending won the day.

The Ducks generated cleaner looks: 3.71 xG to 2.59, six high-danger chances to three. They fired 31 shots to San Jose's 21, yet the Sharks scored four. Their power play (2 goals on 6 shots, 0.26 xG) was lethal; Anaheim's went scoreless (0 for 6). The Ducks managed 0 for 6 on high-danger chances—a brutal conversion drought.

Y. Askarov carried San Jose: 28 for 31 (0.903 SV%), outperforming his expected percentage by 0.71 goals. He stopped all six high-danger attempts. L. Dostal absorbed the loss (17 for 21, 0.810 SV%), 1.41 goals worse than expected against a manageable workload.

Alexander Wennberg's snap shot from the high slot (P3, 19:29) marked the turning point. The Sharks proved lethal on the rush—four goals on 21 chances. Anaheim's rush scoring (two on 26 attempts) couldn't match the pace.

M. Celebrini led with two goals and two assists in 24:03. W. Smith added a goal and two helpers in 18:31. D. Helleson contributed two assists in 11:54, but it wasn't enough.

This was a tale of two goaltenders and one team's inability to finish when it mattered. The Ducks created more—much more—but San Jose's execution and Askarov's wall remind us why variance rules in hockey.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 1
ANA
3
SJS
4

Sharks steal one from the Ducks against the run of play

Chances 3.7 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Ducks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
3.71
SJS
2.59
59% of the chances41%

The board read ANA 3, SJS 4. The chances read ANA 3.7, SJS 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+1.4
goals above expected
SJS2.59 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.71 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
  1. P1 04:37SJSW. SmithPP0–1
  2. P1 17:47ANAR. Poehling1–1
  3. P2 14:59ANAA. Killorn2–1
  4. P3 00:27SJSM. Celebrini2–2
  5. P3 04:04ANAT. Terry3–2
  6. P3 18:21SJSM. CelebriniPP3–3
  7. P3 19:29SJSA. Wennberg3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
43 shots
3
Final
73 shots
SJS
30 shots
4
ANA attackSJS attack
ANA SJS Goal
43
shots · 3 in
30
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANASJS
0 / 6
1.59 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.78 xG
3 / 15
1.60 xG
Medium
3 / 13
1.42 xG
0 / 32
0.52 xG
Low
1 / 29
0.39 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
Y. Askarov
+0.7
SJS · 28/31
D-
L. Dostal
−1.4
ANA · 17/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks steal one from the Ducks against the run of play

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 13–7
  1. 04:37SJSW. Smithpower play(M. Celebrini)0–1
  2. 17:47ANAR. Poehling(D. Helleson, L. Dostal)1–1
2ndshots 9–7
  1. 14:59ANAA. Killorn(D. Helleson, J. LaCombe)2–1
3rdshots 9–7
  1. 00:27SJSM. Celebrini(W. Smith, C. Graf)2–2
  2. 04:04ANAT. Terry3–2
  3. 18:21SJSM. Celebrinipower play(D. Orlov, W. Smith)3–3
  4. 19:29SJSA. Wennberg(M. Celebrini, S. Dickinson)3–4

score reads ANA–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.59
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.032
SJS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.71Expected goals2.59
ANA 59% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal21
6High-danger chances3
53All attempts (Corsi)45
Adjusted for score: ANA 54% · SJS 46%
Faceoffs · SJS won45%off61%neu67%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA0 / 6 · 1.59 xG
SJS0 / 3 · 0.78 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA3 / 15 · 1.60 xG
SJS3 / 13 · 1.42 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 32 · 0.52 xG
SJS1 / 29 · 0.39 xG

ANA went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.59 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
3 G · 3.71 xG · -0.7
SJS
4 G · 2.59 xG · +1.4
012345

ANA finished -0.7 against expected, SJS +1.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST3/31
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/2
SNAP0/2
OTHER0/10
SJS
WRIST1/14
SLAP1/7
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP2/3
OTHER0/15
ANA
SJS
Off the rush
2 G on 26
2.63 xG
4 G on 21
1.99 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.60 xG
0 G on 1
0.17 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 3-for-31, SJS 1-for-14. SJS 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
L. Dostal
ANA · 17/21 · .810
-1.4
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.8+0.8
Medium3/131.4-1.6
Low1/290.4-0.6

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

Y. Askarov
SJS · 28/31 · .903
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.6+1.6
Medium3/151.6-1.4
Low0/320.5+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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
43 shots
3
Final
73 shots
SJS
30 shots
4
ANA attackSJS attack
ANA SJS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, SJS 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
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
2 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 24:03 on ice · +3
W. Smith
#2 · C · SJS
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:31 on ice · +2
D. Helleson
#14 · D · ANA
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 11:54 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Apr 1
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:51 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 projection line sits at ANA 2.7, SJS 2.6, with Anaheim holding 52% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Anaheim dominates the underlying play. The Ducks are generating 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 and driving Corsi at 52.0%, implying territorial control throughout the game. San Jose operates at a clear deficit: 48.0% xG and 47.0% Corsi suggest the Sharks will spend this game defending. Over a larger sample, this gap compounds. But in one game, goaltending variance and shooting luck can bury an advantage—which is why this matchup sits so tight.

San Jose's recent results underscore the problem. The Sharks are underwater at -11 goal differential over their last 10 games, a signal that their underlying numbers aren't translating to results. That trend could persist here.

Efficiency adds a wrinkle. Anaheim's PDO registers at 0.981, meaning the Ducks are running below sustainable rates in both goaltending and shooting. They're due for positive regression. San Jose's PDO of 0.998 sits near neutral, offering no advantage in either direction. The next 10 goals should drift toward Anaheim's favor—unless San Jose's goaltender steals the game.

Both teams face goaltending uncertainty. Y. Askarov is on a back-to-back and may cede the net to a backup, or start on tired legs. V. Husso faces an identical situation. Whichever team avoids a backup performance gains a meaningful, perhaps decisive edge.

Players to Watch

ANA

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

SJS

  • Pavol Regenda — 5G 1A, 1.10 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals, 16.1% shooting
  • Igor Chernyshov — 6G 8A, 0.91 xG/60, 1 high-danger goal, 15.0% shooting

Sennecke drives Anaheim's offense at 1.03 xG/60 with eight high-danger goals, though his 13.5% shooting rate is unsustainable. Gauthier parallels him with 25 goals on 0.99 xG/60. San Jose leans on Regenda, whose 1.10 xG/60 leads the group but on just 5 goals—a small sample that masks variance. Chernyshov offers secondary depth at 0.91 xG/60 with 6 goals and 8 assists.

The underlying advantage belongs to Anaheim. But with both goaltenders on back-to-backs and both teams facing shooting luck variance over the next 60 minutes, this is a genuine coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 52%
52%
ANA
Model favorite
52%
48%
ANA50SJS

ANA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.7–2.6 SJS; 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 →SJS
52.0%48.0%
52.0%47.0%
2.802.33
2.592.56
2.091.99
2.322.32
0.9810.998

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
ANA
5-3-2
+0 GD · 1d rest
SJS
4-5-1
-11 GD · 1d rest
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
SJS 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.
  • Y. Askarov is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • V. Husso is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Sharks are underwater at -11 goal differential over 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
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.

SJS
Expected in goal
Y. Askarov
back-to-back.846 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
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
SJS
Pavol Regenda5G 1A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page