Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
Breakdown · SJS at ANA

Ducks run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

SJS 1 · ANA 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:08 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 didn't just win — they demolished San Jose 6-1 because they finished at an elite level. The Ducks overperformed their expected goals by 2.66, meaning they converted chances with precision the raw xG numbers underestimated.

The underlying metrics told the story. Anaheim controlled 65% of 5v5 expected goals (3.34–1.79) and 61% of shot attempts (30–19). High-danger chances split evenly at 3–3, but Anaheim's quality edge was stark: they generated 0.066 xG per shot versus San Jose's 0.033, making each opportunity count twice as efficiently.

L. Dostal's performance at the other end amplified the gap. He stopped 18 of 19 (0.947 SV%), outperforming his expected save percentage by 0.79 goals. Y. Askarov faced 24 shots and posted a 0.800 SV%, allowing 2.66 more goals than expected—a workload that exposed the gulf between the teams.

The Ducks punished San Jose's mistakes methodically. They scored twice from low-danger areas where a goaltender should hold firm. On the rush, they finished 4 goals on 28 chances—efficiency that compounds across a game. The power play added a dimension: Anaheim scored twice on seven PP shots, banking 0.61 xG on just those seven attempts.

Frank Vatrano's backhander from the doorstep (P3, 17:32) captured the game's trajectory—a team seizing what the superior metrics promised.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 9
SJS
1
ANA
6

Ducks run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.8 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SJS
1.79
ANA
3.34
35% of the chances65%

The board read SJS 1, ANA 6. The chances read SJS 1.8, ANA 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
+2.7
goals above expected
ANA3.34 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS1.79 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Ducks 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
  1. P1 02:59ANAL. Carlsson0–1
  2. P1 06:20ANAJ. Carlson0–2
  3. P2 05:15ANAA. Killorn0–3
  4. P3 10:31ANAJ. CarlsonPP0–4
  5. P3 12:40SJSS. Mukhamadullin1–4
  6. P3 14:03ANAJ. CarlsonPP1–5
  7. P3 17:32ANAF. Vatrano1–6
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SJS
31 shots
1
Final
73 shots
ANA
42 shots
6
SJS attackANA attack
SJS ANA Goal
31
shots · 1 in
42
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SJSANA
0 / 3
0.79 xG
High danger
2 / 3
0.66 xG
0 / 4
0.35 xG
Medium
2 / 18
2.08 xG
1 / 47
0.64 xG
Low
2 / 30
0.61 xG

The Sharks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
L. Dostal
+0.8
ANA · 18/19
F
Y. Askarov
−2.7
SJS · 24/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks run the Sharks 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 5–10
  1. 02:59ANAL. Carlsson(C. Kreider, P. Mintyukov)0–1
  2. 06:20ANAJ. Carlson(M. Granlund, P. Mintyukov)0–2
2ndshots 4–9
  1. 05:15ANAA. Killorn(B. Sennecke)0–3
3rdshots 10–11
  1. 10:31ANAJ. Carlsonpower play(T. Terry, B. Sennecke)0–4
  2. 12:40SJSS. Mukhamadullin(T. Toffoli)1–4
  3. 14:03ANAJ. Carlsonpower play(T. Terry, M. Granlund)1–5
  4. 17:32ANAF. Vatrano(M. McTavish)1–6

score reads SJS–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.34
ANA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.099
ANA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
48.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.79Expected goals3.34
ANA 65% of the chance quality
19Shots on goal30
3High-danger chances3
54All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: SJS 59% · ANA 41%
Faceoffs · ANA won60%off69%neu47%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SJS0 / 3 · 0.79 xG
ANA2 / 3 · 0.66 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SJS0 / 4 · 0.35 xG
ANA2 / 18 · 2.08 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SJS1 / 47 · 0.64 xG
ANA2 / 30 · 0.61 xG

ANA went 2-for-30 from low danger on 0.61 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SJS
1 G · 1.79 xG · -0.8
ANA
6 G · 3.34 xG · +2.7
01234567

SJS finished -0.8 against expected, ANA +2.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
SJS
SNAP1/17
SLAP0/8
WRIST0/4
BACKHAND0/1
TIP IN0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/23
ANA
SNAP0/20
SLAP3/6
WRIST2/8
BACKHAND1/3
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/9
SJS
ANA
Off the rush
1 G on 16
1.13 xG
4 G on 28
2.37 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.43 xG
1 G on 2
0.35 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SJS went 1-for-17, ANA 0-for-20. ANA 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
Y. Askarov
SJS · 24/30 · .800
-2.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/30.7-1.3
Medium2/182.1+0.1
Low2/300.6-1.4

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

L. Dostal
ANA · 18/19 · .947
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.8+0.8
Medium0/40.3+0.3
Low1/470.6-0.4

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

73 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SJS
31 shots
1
Final
73 shots
ANA
42 shots
6
SJS attackANA attack
SJS ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SJS 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
J. Carlson
#74 · D · ANA
3 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:16 on ice · +2
T. Terry
#19 · R · ANA
0 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 18:15 on ice
P. Mintyukov
#98 · D · ANA
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:15 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 9
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:07 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 2.5 to 2.8 goal margin favoring Anaheim, backed by 56% win probability for the Ducks. Structural advantages and a pending regression event explain the lean.

Anaheim dominates the underlying metrics. At 5v5, the Ducks generate 52.0% expected goals compared to San Jose's 48.0%. Anaheim also leads 52.0% Corsi to 47.0%, forcing territorial tilt toward the Sharks' defensive zone.

The regression narrative is central. Anaheim's PDO stands at 0.981—the Ducks are running cold relative to shot quality. Positive regression is due. San Jose's 0.998 PDO suggests slight good fortune, which won't persist.

Form offers no advantage to either side. Both teams carry minus-8 goal differentials over their last ten games. The Ducks' recent underperformance doesn't erase their underlying edge; the metrics and results haven't aligned yet.

L. Dostal is on a back-to-back, introducing a variable. Watch for a backup start or a fatigued starter.

San Jose's key creator, Pavol Regenda, is out (marked inactive). Regenda's 1.10 xG/60 disappears from the Sharks' attack. Igor Chernyshov fills the void at 0.91 xG/60—replacement-level production. Chernyshov also represents a defensive weakness.

Anaheim has balanced scoring depth. Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20 goals, 8 high-danger chances) and Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 25 goals, 2 high-danger chances) can generate offense. Mason McTavish is the defensive liability to monitor on Anaheim's end.

The Ducks control process (xG, Corsi, territory) and face a team missing its best scorer. Regression is coming. Back Anaheim.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 56%
56%
ANA
Model favorite
44%
56%
SJS50ANA

ANA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 2.5–2.8 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
SJS← edge
edge →ANA
48.0%52.0%
47.0%52.0%
2.332.80
2.562.59
1.992.09
2.322.32
0.9980.981

ANA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 0.981) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SJS
5-4-1
-8 GD · 2d rest
ANA
4-5-1
-8 GD · 1d rest
0.998
SJS 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 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.
  • L. Dostal is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Ducks are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Sharks are underwater at -8 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
SJS
Expected in goal
A. Nedeljkovic
2 days rest.931 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
back-to-back.800 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
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
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