Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater

Breakdown · ANA at NSH

Ducks run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Apr 16

ANAAnaheim Ducks5 NSHNashville Predators4

The verdict · earned

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

ANA 5 · NSH 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:58 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's 5-4 win over Nashville looked close, but the underlying numbers told a different story. The Ducks controlled 65% of expected goals (5.06–2.71) and 65% of shot attempts (40–21)—a domination that the scoreline masked.

The Predators finished a goal above their xG expectation—a fortunate variance given their limited offensive volume. Nashville was lethal on the rush, scoring four goals on 21 chances, but this efficiency on one dimension couldn't overcome their overall shot-generation deficit.

High-danger chances finished even at 4–4, a rare symmetry that only underscored the disparity in shot volume and quality. Anaheim's 40 attempts generated more dangerous looks overall; Nashville's power play (2 goals on 11 shots, 0.78 xG) remained their only reliable offensive avenue.

Goaltending variance tilted Nashville's way. V. Husso (ANA) allowed 1.29 goals more than expected, posting a 0.810 save percentage on 21 shots. J. Saros (NSH) was sharp at 35–40 (0.875 SV%), making Nashville's xG overperformance even more remarkable.

Troy Terry's wrist shot from the doorstep in the third period (17:06) finally converted Anaheim's superior shot generation—a fitting climax to a lopsided underlying battle.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 16

ANA

NSH

Ducks run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.1 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

ANA

5.06

NSH

2.71

65% of the chances35%

The board read ANA 5, NSH 4. The chances read ANA 5.1, NSH 2.7.

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

Luck check

ANA

−0.1

goals above expected

ANA5.06 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

NSH2.71 expected · 4 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

P1 01:36ANAC. Gauthier1–0
P1 10:09NSHS. Stamkos1–1
P1 15:55NSHF. ForsbergPP1–2
P1 19:39ANAJ. LaCombe2–2
P2 04:33ANAA. Killorn3–2
P2 14:37NSHF. Forsberg3–3
P2 15:23NSHS. StamkosPP3–4

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

ANA

62 shots

Final

92 shots

NSH

30 shots

ANA NSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

ANANSH

0 / 4

0.92 xG

High danger

1 / 4

1.10 xG

2 / 29

3.37 xG

Medium

3 / 10

1.14 xG

3 / 46

0.77 xG

Low

0 / 28

0.47 xG

High-danger looks: ANA 0 of 4, NSH 1 of 4.

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

In the net

J. Saros

+0.1

NSH · 35/40

D-

V. Husso

−1.3

ANA · 17/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Ducks run the Predators 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 10–9

01:36ANAC. Gauthier(R. Poehling, J. Carlson)1–0
10:09NSHS. Stamkos(C. O'Hara)1–1
15:55NSHF. Forsbergpower play(R. Ufko, S. Stamkos)1–2
19:39ANAJ. LaCombe(J. Trouba, M. McTavish)2–2

2ndshots 14–8

04:33ANAA. Killorn(J. Carlson, M. Granlund)3–2
14:37NSHF. Forsberg(L. Evangelista, R. Ufko)3–3
15:23NSHS. Stamkospower play(R. O'Reilly, L. Evangelista)3–4

3rdshots 16–4

04:17ANAT. Luneau(M. Granlund, J. Viel)4–4
17:06ANAT. Terrypower play(M. Granlund, L. Carlsson)5–4

score reads ANA–NSH

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.06

ANA chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.968

ANA puck luck

Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them

65.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.06Expected goals2.71

ANA 65% of the chance quality

40Shots on goal21

4High-danger chances4

79All attempts (Corsi)42

Adjusted for score: ANA 64% · NSH 36%

Faceoffs · NSH won35%off26%neu78%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

ANA0 / 4 · 0.92 xG

NSH1 / 4 · 1.10 xG

Medium dangermid-range

ANA2 / 29 · 3.37 xG

NSH3 / 10 · 1.14 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

ANA3 / 46 · 0.77 xG

NSH0 / 28 · 0.47 xG

ANA went 3-for-46 from low danger on 0.77 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

ANA

5 G · 5.06 xG · -0.1

NSH

4 G · 2.71 xG · +1.3

0123456

ANA finished -0.1 against expected, NSH +1.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

ANA

WRIST2/19

SNAP2/18

BACKHAND0/10

SLAP1/8

TIP IN0/6

BAT0/1

OTHER0/17

NSH

WRIST1/16

SNAP2/7

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP0/2

TIP IN1/3

BAT0/0

OTHER0/12

ANA

NSH

Off the rush

1 G on 39

3.31 xG

4 G on 21

1.81 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 8

1.11 xG

0 G on 3

0.43 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 2-for-19, NSH 1-for-16. NSH 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

V. Husso

ANA · 17/21 · .810

-1.3

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/41.1+0.1

Medium3/101.1-1.9

Low0/280.5+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

J. Saros

NSH · 35/40 · .875

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.9+0.9

Medium2/293.4+1.4

Low3/460.8-2.2

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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

ANA

62 shots

Final

92 shots

NSH

30 shots

ANA NSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, NSH 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. Granlund

#64 · C · ANA

0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 18:08 on ice · +1

S. Stamkos

#91 · C · NSH

2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 16:49 on ice · +1

R. Ufko

#85 · D · NSH

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 20:29 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 16

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:56 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 models project a 2.7-2.7 game with the Ducks at 50% to win—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Anaheim controls the underlying play. The Ducks generate 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 to Nashville's 49.0%, a gap that mirrors their Corsi advantage (52.0% to 50.0%). Beckett Sennecke leads at 1.03 xG/60 with 20 goals and 8 hard-chance goals, shooting at 13.5%. Cutter Gauthier generates nearly as much at 0.99 xG/60 and leads in goals with 25, but just 2 came from hard chances; he's clicking at 12.9%. But Anaheim's PDO sits at 0.981, well below Nashville's 0.992. The Ducks are running cold—primed for the regression that reverses luck.

Nashville's case rests on Filip Forsberg and Zachary L'Heureux. Forsberg operates at 0.80 xG/60 on a 23-goal pace, shooting 13.6%. L'Heureux has just 4 goals but generates at 0.85 xG/60 and is shooting 16.0%—a spike that will settle toward the mean, making his offensive profile less threatening than Forsberg's consistency once regression hits.

The tension is exact: Anaheim should win on process, but the PDO gap offers Nashville a path to steal one before the Ducks' edge materializes. Mason McTavish is Anaheim's defensive liability, Jonathan Marchessault fills that role for Nashville. This is a game the models read as even—decided by who capitalizes first.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 50%

50%

ANA

Model favorite

50%

ANA50NSH

ANA by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.7–2.7 NSH; 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 →NSH

52.0%49.0%

52.0%50.0%

2.802.48

2.592.58

2.091.84

2.322.21

0.9810.992

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.992) says NSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

ANA

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

NSH

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.981

ANA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.992

NSH 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%.

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' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.

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

NSH

Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A

0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh

Filip Forsberg23G 17A

0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page