Anaheim dominated the underlying metrics but left with nothing. The Ducks generated 3.62 expected goals to Vancouver's 3.17 — a 53–47 split that suggested they should've won — yet lost 4-3 in overtime. The Canucks converted at an unsustainable rate, outperforming their xG by 0.83 goals. Anaheim went the other way, underperforming by the same 0.83.

Vancouver did possess one real edge: efficiency on the rush, scoring 2 goals on 22 chances. Anaheim created 3 rebound opportunities but converted only 1. The Canucks' power play was dominant—2 PPG on 9 PP shots (1.13 xG)—a lethal weapon.

Anaheim held 51% of shot attempts (27–26 on goal) but couldn't translate volume into a win. High-danger chances split 6–6, dead even. N. Tolopilo stopped 24 of 27 for Vancouver, posting a 0.889 SV% that beat his expected by 0.62 goals. L. Dostal faced 26 shots and made 22 saves at a 0.846 SV%, running 0.83 below projection.

The turning point came at 4:50 of overtime when M. Rossi fired a slap shot from the top of the circles past Dostal. Rossi (1G, 1A in 18:49) and B. Boeser (1G, 1A in 23:08) drove the Canucks' attack, with C. Kreider picking up 2 assists for Anaheim despite the loss.

Variance claimed another victim. The Ducks built a convincing case for the win on paper and executed well in stretches — but in the end, the scoreboard doesn't grade on process.

The model projects a 2.4–2.9 game with the Ducks favored at 59% win probability. That edge rests on a territorial advantage that recent form and shooting luck will test.

Anaheim owns the underlying play decisively. At even strength, Anaheim drives 52.0% of expected goals to Vancouver's 44.0% and controls shot volume at 52.0% Corsi to Vancouver's 46.0%. These are not marginal edges; they predict a fundamental territorial tilt toward Anaheim.

Recent form complicates the picture without erasing it. The Ducks have earned a 4-5-1 pace in their last 10, outpacing Vancouver on points, though both teams are underwater on goal differential. Anaheim sits at -6; Vancouver at -22. That Vancouver deficit is the real alarm.

Both teams' PDO rates demand scrutiny. Anaheim's 0.981 and Vancouver's 0.974 are both depressed—meaning both have underperformed their expected output and are due for positive regression. The Ducks' advantage in underlying metrics suggests they'll capture more of that regression benefit when shooting luck normalizes, a subtle but real edge in a tight model projection.

Anaheim leans on Beckett Sennecke (20G, 1.03 xG/60, 13.5% shooting) and Cutter Gauthier (25G, 0.99 xG/60, 12.9% shooting) at even strength. Vancouver's Filip Chytil, who carries a 1.03 xG/60, has not played in 69 days and is likely injured, leaving Drew O'Connor (13G, 11A, 11.8% shooting) as the primary offensive outlet. O'Connor has generated three hard-chance goals, a sign of efficiency in high-danger areas.

Neither team converts at the high-danger rate. Vancouver shows 0% on both hard-chance and rebound goals, as does Anaheim. That stasis favors the team generating more chances—which is Anaheim, by the numbers and the metrics.

Data: MoneyPuck 5v5 models, NHL API