STRENGTHNSH
J. Annunen stole it
J. Annunen stopped 43 of 43 (1.000) — +5.37 goals saved above expected in a 5-goal game.
The verdict · stolen
The Predators stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.40–5.37 and won anyway.
NSH 5 · ANA 0
◆ By the ModelSep 21, 10:33 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
Nashville stole this one. Anaheim controlled 61% of expected goals (5.37–3.40) and still lost 5-0 — a heist that hinged on goaltending and finishing.
The Ducks dominated the underlying shot quality. They generated 43 shots to Nashville's 25, owned 63% of shot attempts, and established 61% of the game's expected goals. Across high-danger scoring chances, Anaheim had only two to Nashville's six. The Ducks couldn't finish: 0 for 6 on those premium looks, which won't happen again.
The Predators struck ruthlessly off the rush. Fedor Svechkov's snap shot from the doorstep (P3, 15:07) opened the floodgates; Nashville then parlayed 26 rush chances into five goals, a conversion rate that describes a team executing under control while its opponent crumbled.
J. Annunen (NSH) saved 5.37 goals above expected — the gap between stolen and earned. L. Dostal (ANA) underperformed by 1.60, though his actual save rate (0.800, 20/25) reflects his workload: Nashville's efficient finishing made him look worse than the defense did.
Nashville's transition game created lanes the Ducks struggled to close. Anaheim responded in transition too (a B rating) but never converted that work into danger. Their offensive rating reads A+, a reflection of the shot volume and expected-goal dominance, but six failed high-danger chances made that rating academic.
The Predators owned discipline and luck in equal measure — a D for suspension risk, an A+ for both bounces and goaltending. Nashville played a contained game despite Anaheim's overwhelming territorial control. That imbalance is the story: one team was more efficient with far less opportunity.