Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater

Breakdown · STL at ANA

Blues pull away from the Ducks

FinalFri, Apr 3

The verdict · stolen

The Blues stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.34–3.85 and won anyway.

STL 6 · ANA 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:10 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

St. Louis routed Anaheim 6-2, but expected goals ran 3.85-3.34—a split that suggests a much closer game. The Ducks underperformed their xG by 1.85 goals; the Blues overshot theirs by 2.66. The gap came down to goaltending and execution.

J. Hofer (STL) stopped 1.85 goals above expected on 25 saves. L. Dostal (ANA) allowed 2.66 more than expected on 29 shots. That variance alone accounts for most of the margin.

St. Louis translated this edge into rush dominance, scoring four goals on 26 transition attempts. Dylan Holloway's sharp-angle snap shot (P3, 01:22) served as the pivot.

The Blues' power play added distance: 2 goals on 7 attempts.

Anaheim wasn't toothless—nine high-danger chances to St. Louis's three—but three rebound opportunities yielded nothing. The underlying story: quality without conversion.

Final: STL 6 – ANA 2

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 3

STL

ANA

Blues pull away from the Ducks

Chances 3.3 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

3.34

ANA

3.85

46% of the chances54%

The board read STL 6, ANA 2. The chances read STL 3.3, ANA 3.9.

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

Luck check

STL

+2.7

goals above expected

STL3.34 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

ANA3.85 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blues scored 2.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 01:51ANAR. Poehling0–1
P1 05:24STLR. Thomas1–1
P1 11:18STLD. HollowayPP2–1
P1 16:01ANAJ. Viel2–2
P1 18:44STLJ. Berggren3–2
P2 03:08STLP. Suter4–2
P2 16:50STLC. Parayko5–2

+1 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

STL

41 shots

Final

88 shots

ANA

47 shots

STL ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLANA

1 / 3

0.67 xG

High danger

2 / 9

2.00 xG

5 / 23

2.13 xG

Medium

0 / 12

1.28 xG

0 / 25

0.54 xG

Low

0 / 40

0.58 xG

High-danger looks: STL 1 of 3, ANA 2 of 9.

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

In the net

J. Hofer

+1.9

STL · 25/27

L. Dostal

−2.7

ANA · 23/29

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blues pull away from the Ducks

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 13–8

01:51ANAR. Poehling(M. McTavish, O. Zellweger)0–1
05:24STLR. Thomas(P. Broberg, C. Parayko)1–1
11:18STLD. Hollowaypower play(J. Neighbours, R. Thomas)2–1
16:01ANAJ. Viel(R. Poehling, D. Helleson)2–2
18:44STLJ. Berggren(P. Suter)3–2

2ndshots 8–9

03:08STLP. Suter(T. Tucker, J. Neighbours)4–2
16:50STLC. Parayko(D. Dvorsky, J. Kyrou)5–2

3rdshots 8–10

01:22STLD. Hollowaypower play(R. Thomas, P. Broberg)6–2

score reads STL–ANA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.34

STL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.085

STL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

45.5%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.34Expected goals3.85

ANA 54% of the chance quality

29Shots on goal27

3High-danger chances9

51All attempts (Corsi)61

Adjusted for score: STL 41% · ANA 59%

Faceoffs · ANA won50%off60%neu33%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL1 / 3 · 0.67 xG

ANA2 / 9 · 2.00 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL5 / 23 · 2.13 xG

ANA0 / 12 · 1.28 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL0 / 25 · 0.54 xG

ANA0 / 40 · 0.58 xG

STL went 5-for-23 from medium danger on 2.13 expected goals — 2.9 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

6 G · 3.34 xG · +2.7

ANA

2 G · 3.85 xG · -1.9

01234567

STL finished +2.7 against expected, ANA -1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

SNAP5/21

WRIST1/7

SLAP0/2

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/2

BAT0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/10

ANA

SNAP0/16

WRIST1/15

SLAP1/7

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/2

BAT0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/14

STL

ANA

Off the rush

4 G on 26

1.91 xG

1 G on 28

2.96 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 5

0.72 xG

0 G on 3

0.47 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: STL went 5-for-21, ANA 0-for-16. STL 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

J. Hofer

STL · 25/27 · .926

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/92.0+0.0

Medium0/121.3+1.3

Low0/400.6+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

L. Dostal

ANA · 23/29 · .793

-2.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.7-0.3

Medium5/232.1-2.9

Low0/250.5+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

41 shots

Final

88 shots

ANA

47 shots

STL ANA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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. Thomas

#18 · C · STL

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:20 on ice · +1

P. Broberg

#6 · D · STL

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:04 on ice · +1

C. Parayko

#55 · D · STL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:38 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Apr 3

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:09 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 STL 2.5-2.7 ANA game with the Ducks at 55% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Anaheim owns the underlying play. The Ducks hold a 52.0% 5v5 expected goals share against St. Louis's 49.0%, and control the puck at a 52.0% Corsi clip to the Blues' 48.0%. Territorial domination should translate to more chances and better chances. Yet the Ducks' PDO of 0.981 tells a different story: they're running cold on the shot-luck scale, which means regression toward average is baked in. St. Louis's PDO of 1.000 means they're getting their typical bounces. Anaheim hasn't.

Both goalies check in on the second night of back-to-backs. L. Dostal faces either rest or fatigue; J. Binnington does the same. How each team deploys—backup or tired starter—carries real consequence.

Offensively, the gap between the teams' best players reveals hierarchy. Beckett Sennecke runs 1.03 expected goals per 60 and has scored 20 goals with 8 hard-chance conversions on a 13.5% shooting rate—elite volume and elite finishing. Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 25 goals, 12.9% shooting) sustains that offensive pressure. St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15 goals, 11.9% shooting, 2 hard-chance conversions) and Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, 10.8% shooting). The Blues have depth, but Sennecke isolates as the single most efficient finisher in this matchup.

Both teams register 0% hard-chance goal rates and 0% rebound conversion rates. Anaheim's defensive weak link is Mason McTavish; St. Louis's is Jimmy Snuggerud.

The Ducks' possession and shot-quality edge should prevail. Their cold PDO is the only structural reason this remains a flip. Back-to-back goaltending—and deployment decisions—could distribute variance either direction, but the underlying edge belongs to Anaheim.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 55%

55%

ANA

Model favorite

45%

55%

STL50ANA

ANA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.5–2.7 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

STL← edge

edge →ANA

49.0%52.0%

48.0%52.0%

2.342.80

2.402.59

2.002.09

2.122.32

1.0000.981

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 0.981) says STL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

STL

6-2-2

+9 GD · 1d rest

ANA

5-3-2

+1 GD · 1d rest

1.000

STL 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 own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
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 49.0%.
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.
J. Binnington 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

STL

Expected in goal

J. Binnington

back-to-back.923 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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.810 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

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A

0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh

Dylan Holloway13G 24A

0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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