Backcheck
Recap · ANA at NSH

Ducks run the Predators off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 11:58 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
ANA
Anaheim Ducks
5
Home
NSH
Nashville Predators
4
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

5.06Expected goals2.71
65% share for the better side
40Shot attempts (SOG)21
4High-danger chances4
79Corsi (all attempts)42
Score-adjusted: 64% / 36%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
V. HussoANA
-1.3
J. SarosNSH
+0.1

ANA finished -0.1 against expected, NSH +1.3 — V. Husso (ANA) allowed 1.3 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Granlund
#64 · C · ANA
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 18:08 TOI · +1
S. Stamkos
#91 · C · NSH
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 16:49 TOI · +1
R. Ufko
#85 · D · NSH
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 20:29 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • V. Husso (ANA) gave up 1.3 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • ANA scored 3 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • NSH was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 21 rush chances.
  • NSH created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • ANA created 8 rebound opportunities (2 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • NSH power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 11 PP shots (0.78 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · ANA at NSH · 8:00 PM ET

Ducks at Predators: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 11:56 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

50%
ANA
Model favorite
50%
50%
ANA50NSH

ANA by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.72.7 NSH; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

ANA← edge
edge →NSH
52.0%5v5 xG%49.0%
52.0%Corsi%50.0%
2.80xGF / 602.48
2.59xGA / 602.58
2.09Goals for / gm1.84
2.32Goals against / gm2.21
0.981PDO — luck, not skill0.992

ANA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.981 vs 0.992) says NSH has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters