Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Thu, Sep 24 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at SJS · Preseason

Sharks shut out the Ducks, 10-0

FinalThu, Sep 24
ANAAnaheim Ducks0SJSSan Jose Sharks10
The verdict · earned

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

ANA 0 · SJS 10
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 25, 1:09 AMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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

San Jose shut out Anaheim 10-0. The Sharks built a 5-0 first period on the back of their transition attack, and A. Nedeljkovic's perfect evening in net sealed it.

The underlying model had this game much closer: San Jose should have scored 3.60 expected goals to Anaheim's 2.05. Instead, the Sharks finished a full 6.40 goals above their workload, a rare spike of either skill or fortune that made a competitive matchup look like a rout.

San Jose controlled the puck edge: 56% of shot attempts ran through them. Their rush game was the decisive difference — 27 chances off the transition drew 2.64 expected goals and yielded 7 actual ones. Anaheim could not match that pace.

A. Nedeljkovic arrived at precisely the right time. The netminder stopped 21 shots and held back 2.05 more goals than that workload should have allowed. Anaheim's goaltending, by contrast, folded: V. Husso (13 saves on 19 shots) was charged 3.46 goals more than expected before being yanked for L. Brossoit, who allowed 4 goals on 8 shots.

San Jose's power play added 2 goals on 7 shots — an efficient evening.

The goals

  • SJS 0–1, 03:55 of the first. M. Marchment, wrist shot from 5 feet, a 20% chance by the model (a rebound), past V. Husso. 2 seconds after a SJS shot by M. Marchment. V. Husso was 235 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • SJS 0–2, 05:29 of the first. I. Stenberg, tip-in from 5 feet, a 32% chance by the model (off the rush), past V. Husso. Assists: M. Misa. 4 seconds after a SJS blocked shot by N. Jensen. V. Husso was 329 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 12 points.
  • SJS 0–3, 09:29 of the first. I. Chernyshov, wrist shot from 9 feet, a 16% chance by the model (off the rush), past V. Husso. Assists: F. Bystedt, J. Huntington. V. Husso was 569 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 8 points.
  • SJS 0–4, 11:33 of the first. M. Misa, wrist shot from 19 feet, a 12% chance by the model (a rebound), past V. Husso. Assists: I. Stenberg, N. Allan. 1 second after a SJS missed shot by M. Misa. V. Husso was 693 seconds into his shift for the defending side.
  • SJS 0–5, 15:45 of the first. I. Chernyshov, wrist shot from 24 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past V. Husso. Assists: L. Cagnoni, S. Dickinson. 7 seconds after a SJS faceoff win by F. Bystedt. V. Husso was 945 seconds into his shift for the defending side.
  • SJS 0–6, 03:04 of the second. I. Stenberg, wrist shot from 25 feet, a 12% chance by the model (off the rush), past V. Husso. Assists: M. Misa, K. Sherwood. 8 seconds after a SJS blocked shot by S. Farrell. V. Husso was 184 seconds into his shift for the defending side.
  • SJS 0–7, 12:57 of the second. M. Marchment, wrist shot from 15 feet, a 17% chance by the model, past L. Brossoit. Assists: W. Smith, M. Celebrini. 3 seconds after a SJS takeaway by M. Celebrini. L. Brossoit was 171 seconds into his shift for the defending side.
  • SJS 0–8, 07:54 of the third on the power play. B. Leason, tip-in from 10 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past L. Brossoit. Assists: E. Pohlkamp, M. Misa. L. Brossoit was 474 seconds into his shift for the defending side.
  • SJS 0–9, 16:57 of the third on the power play. I. Stenberg, wrist shot from 24 feet, a 4% chance by the model (off the rush), past L. Brossoit. Assists: B. Leason, J. Huntington.
  • SJS 0–10, 17:23 of the third. F. Bystedt, wrist shot from 24 feet, a 9% chance by the model (off the rush), past L. Brossoit. Assists: I. Chernyshov. 7 seconds after an ANA giveaway by S. Farrell.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Preseason · Sep 24
ANA
0
SJS
10

Sharks shut out the Ducks, 10-0

Chances 2.0 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
2.05
SJS
3.60
36% of the chances64%

The board read ANA 0, SJS 10. The chances read ANA 2.0, SJS 3.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+6.4
goals above expected
SJS3.60 expected · 10 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA2.05 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sharks scored 6.4 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+14
win-probability points
54% → 68% for SJS
SJS 100%the game, start to finish
ANA 100%P1 · P2 · P3
SJSP1 03:55

M. Marchment makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:55SJSM. Marchment20%0–1
  2. P1 05:29SJSI. Stenberg32%0–2
  3. P1 09:29SJSI. Chernyshov16%0–3
  4. P1 11:33SJSM. Misa12%0–4
  5. P1 15:45SJSI. Chernyshov8%0–5
  6. P2 03:04SJSI. Stenberg12%0–6
  7. P2 12:57SJSM. Marchment17%0–7
+3 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
30 shots
0
Final
72 shots
SJS
42 shots
10
ANA attackSJS attack
ANA SJS Goal
30
shots · 0 in
42
shots · 10 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANASJS
0 / 4
0.88 xG
High danger
2 / 3
0.83 xG
0 / 9
0.90 xG
Medium
7 / 22
2.43 xG
0 / 29
0.26 xG
Low
1 / 32
0.34 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Nedeljkovic
+2.0
SJS · 21/21 · 60:00
Best save · a 32% chance, wrist from 7 ft · P2 15:13
F
V. Husso
−3.2
ANA · 13/19 · 30:06
Best save · a 32% chance, tip-in from 5 ft · P1 10:16
+1 more on the full breakdown
Best skater on the ice
A+
SJS
I. Stenberg
L · impact 3.42
15:23
Ice time
3–1
G – A
0.47
Own xG
59%
xG share
Impact · top 4
I. Stenberg3.4A+
M. Misa2.9A+
I. Chernyshov2.6A+
M. Marchment2.3A
Report card
ANASJS
OffenseC-A-
DefenseFB-
TransitionFA
Special teamsFA-
GoaltendingFA
DisciplineC-B-
LuckFA+
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why SJS won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02A. Nedeljkovic stole it
  3. 03Won on the merits
Why ANA lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02V. Husso couldn't make the stop
  3. 03PDO ran cold
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks shut out the Ducks, 10-0

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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 5–14
  1. 03:55SJSM. Marchment0–1

    Wrist shot from 5 feet, a 20% chance (a rebound), past V. Husso. 2s after a SJS shot by M. Marchment. V. Husso was 235s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: M. Marchment, L. Cagnoni, W. Smith, M. Celebrini, S. Dickinson · against V. Husso, J. Woo, A. Wahlberg, T. Mitchell, R. McQueen, N. Klepov

  2. 05:29SJSI. Stenberg(M. Misa)0–2

    Tip-in from 5 feet, a 32% chance (off the rush), past V. Husso. 4s after a SJS block. V. Husso was 329s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 12 points.On the ice: B. Goodrow, D. Nurse, T. Dellandrea, M. Kesselring, B. Leason · against V. Husso, C. Schueneman, S. Farrell, C. Lucius, L. Pettersson, S. Solberg

  3. 09:29SJSI. Chernyshov(F. Bystedt, J. Huntington)0–3

    Wrist shot from 9 feet, a 16% chance (off the rush), past V. Husso. V. Husso was 569s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 8 points.On the ice: J. Huntington, F. Bystedt, L. Cagnoni, S. Dickinson, I. Chernyshov · against V. Husso, C. Schueneman, S. Colangelo, J. Malott, N. Gaucher, S. Solberg

  4. 11:33SJSM. Misa(I. Stenberg, N. Allan)0–4

    Wrist shot from 19 feet, a 12% chance (a rebound), past V. Husso. 1s after a SJS miss by M. Misa. V. Husso was 693s into his shift for the defending side.On the ice: B. Goodrow, D. Nurse, T. Dellandrea, M. Kesselring, B. Leason · against V. Husso, C. Schueneman, A. Wahlberg, S. Solberg, R. McQueen, N. Klepov

  5. 15:45SJSI. Chernyshov(L. Cagnoni, S. Dickinson)0–5

    Wrist shot from 24 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past V. Husso. 7s after a SJS faceoff win by F. Bystedt. V. Husso was 945s into his shift for the defending side.On the ice: J. Huntington, F. Bystedt, L. Cagnoni, S. Dickinson, I. Chernyshov · against N. Jensen, V. Husso, J. Hamblin, J. Caulfield, T. Hinds, N. Myatovic

2ndshots 8–7
  1. 03:04SJSI. Stenberg(M. Misa, K. Sherwood)0–6

    Wrist shot from 25 feet, a 12% chance (off the rush), past V. Husso. 8s after a SJS block. V. Husso was 184s into his shift for the defending side.On the ice: K. Sherwood, N. Allan, E. Pohlkamp, M. Misa, I. Stenberg · against N. Jensen, V. Husso, T. Hinds, N. Myatovic, R. McQueen, N. Klepov

  2. 12:57SJSM. Marchment(W. Smith, M. Celebrini)0–7

    Wrist shot from 15 feet, a 17% chance, past L. Brossoit. 3s after a SJS takeaway by M. Celebrini. L. Brossoit was 171s into his shift for the defending side.On the ice: B. Goodrow, T. Dellandrea, B. Leason, N. Allan, E. Pohlkamp · against L. Brossoit, J. Woo, J. Caulfield, T. Hinds, N. Gaucher, A. Wahlberg

3rdshots 8–6
  1. 07:54SJSB. Leasonpower play(E. Pohlkamp, M. Misa)0–8

    Tip-in from 10 feet, a 10% chance (off the rush), past L. Brossoit. L. Brossoit was 474s into his shift for the defending side.On the ice: J. Huntington, N. Allan, F. Bystedt, E. Pohlkamp, I. Chernyshov · against N. Jensen, L. Brossoit, S. Farrell, T. Hinds, C. Lucius, L. Pettersson

  2. 16:57SJSI. Stenbergpower play(B. Leason, J. Huntington)0–9

    Wrist shot from 24 feet, a 4% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past L. Brossoit.

  3. 17:23SJSF. Bystedt(I. Chernyshov)0–10

    Wrist shot from 24 feet, a 9% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past L. Brossoit. 7s after an ANA giveaway by S. Farrell.

score reads ANA–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.60
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+6.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.175
SJS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
57.6%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.05Expected goals3.60
SJS 64% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal27
4High-danger chances3
42All attempts (Corsi)57
Adjusted for score: ANA 49% · SJS 51%
Faceoffs · SJS won53%off47%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA0 / 4 · 0.88 xG
SJS2 / 3 · 0.83 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA0 / 9 · 0.90 xG
SJS7 / 22 · 2.43 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 29 · 0.26 xG
SJS1 / 32 · 0.34 xG

SJS went 7-for-22 from medium danger on 2.43 expected goals — 4.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
0 G · 2.05 xG · -2.0
SJS
10 G · 3.60 xG · +6.4
01234567891011

ANA finished -2.0 against expected, SJS +6.4.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST0/23
SLAP0/4
SNAP0/3
TIP IN0/0
BACKHAND0/0
OTHER0/12
SJS
WRIST8/26
SLAP0/5
SNAP0/4
TIP IN2/5
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/15
ANA
SJS
Off the rush
0 G on 13
1.37 xG
7 G on 27
2.64 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.20 xG
2 G on 4
0.47 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-23, SJS 8-for-26. SJS scored 7 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
L. Brossoit
ANA · 4/8 · .500
in relief · 29:47
-3.2
saved above expected
F
the night
Attempts faced
13
Avg chance faced
5.9%
Stopped vs expected
0.692 vs 0.941
Rebounds allowed
0
By dangerG/attxGsaved
Medium3/60.7-2.3
Low1/70.1-0.9
Shorthanded2/30.3-1.8
Tips & deflections1/10.1-0.9
The save
12% chance stopped, a slap from 32 ft · P3 16:30
The one to have back
4% chance went in, a wrist from 24 ft · P3 16:57

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

V. Husso
ANA · 13/19 · .684
started · 30:06 · loss
-3.2
saved above expected
F
the night
Attempts faced
29
Avg chance faced
9.8%
Stopped vs expected
0.793 vs 0.902
Rebounds allowed
4 · 2 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/30.8-1.2
Medium4/161.8-2.2
Low0/100.2+0.2
Shorthanded0/20.1+0.1
Tips & deflections1/40.8-0.2
The save
32% chance stopped, a tip-in from 5 ft · P1 10:16
The one to have back
8% chance went in, a wrist from 24 ft · P1 15:45

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

A. Nedeljkovic
SJS · 21/21 · 1.000
started · 60:00 · win
+2.0
saved above expected
A
the night
Attempts faced
30
Avg chance faced
6.8%
Stopped vs expected
1.000 vs 0.932
Rebounds allowed
2
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.9+0.9
Medium0/90.9+0.9
Low0/170.3+0.3
Shorthanded0/90.8+0.8
The save
32% chance stopped, a wrist from 7 ft · P2 15:13

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

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: I. Stenberg (SJS), 15:23 of ice, 3-1, 59% of the expected goals while he was out.

ANA18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
N. GaucherC8:510-050B
C. SchuenemanD21:390-057B
N. JensenD22:030-047C
S. ColangeloR12:080-052C
R. McQueenC18:470-047C
J. MalottL11:310-051C
J. CaulfieldR19:090-053D
N. MyatovicL21:240-044D
S. SolbergD18:510-032D
J. WooD11:200-022D
N. KlepovR15:460-048D
J. HamblinL16:400-049D
T. MitchellD19:220-013D
S. FarrellC10:300-017F
A. WahlbergC16:500-033F
L. PetterssonC12:550-014F
T. HindsD18:440-021F
C. LuciusR14:050-019F
SJS18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
I. StenbergL15:233-159A+
M. MisaC15:561-337A+
I. ChernyshovL14:342-158A+
M. MarchmentL11:482-081A
B. LeasonR14:191-174A
W. SmithC14:100-181A
M. CelebriniC10:450-190A
F. BystedtC17:191-152A
E. PohlkampD18:210-182B
J. HuntingtonC15:170-253B
L. CagnoniD19:170-162B
N. AllanD17:520-162B
S. DickinsonD19:440-153B
K. SherwoodL18:050-134C
M. KesselringD19:470-054C
T. DellandreaC14:310-064C
D. NurseD19:440-054C
B. GoodrowC13:080-057D

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, ANA: A. Killorn, M. Granlund, F. Vatrano, A. Greer, T. Terry, R. Poehling and 40 more. Scratched, SJS: L. Couture, D. Orlov, T. Toffoli, J. Trouba, A. Wennberg, R. McKeown and 50 more. Referees Trevor Hanson and Morgan MacPhee; linesmen Ryan Gibbons and Shawn Oliver.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionANASJS
Offense
▸Basis

ANA Created 2.05 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.88 xG) and 13 rush shots (1.37 xG).

SJS Created 3.60 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.83 xG) and 27 rush shots (2.64 xG).

C-
70
A-
91
Defense
▸Basis

ANA Allowed 3.60 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.83 xG) and 27 rush shots (2.64 xG).

SJS Allowed 2.05 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.88 xG) and 13 rush shots (1.37 xG).

F
59
B-
80
Transition
▸Basis

ANA Rush shots 13–27, rush xG 1.37–2.64 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

SJS Rush shots 27–13, rush xG 2.64–1.37 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

F
55
A
95
Special teams
▸Basis

ANA 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.47 PP xG.

SJS 2-for-5 on the power play (40%; league ≈21%) with 0.36 PP xG.

F
53
A-
91
Goaltending
▸Basis

ANA -6.40 goals saved above expected on 27 shots against.

SJS +2.05 goals saved above expected on 21 shots against.

F
11
A
95
Discipline
▸Basis

ANA Took 6 penalties for 12 PIM vs 5 for 10 on the other side.

SJS Took 5 penalties for 10 PIM vs 6 for 12 on the other side.

C-
70
B-
80
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

ANA Finishing -2.05 goals vs xG plus -6.40 GSAx of save luck = -8.45 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

SJS Finishing +6.40 goals vs xG plus +2.05 GSAx of save luck = +8.45 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

F
7
A+
100
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
STRENGTHSJS

Dangerous off the rush

7 goals on 27 rush shots worth 2.64 xG.

WARNINGANA

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 27 rush shots worth 2.64 xG (7 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

LUCKSJS

Ran hot in front of the net

Scored 10 on 3.60 xG — +6.40 above expected. Shooting luck like that regresses.

LUCKANA

PDO ran cold

Single-game PDO of 0.825 — the bounces went against them tonight.

WARNINGANA

V. Husso couldn't make the stop

V. Husso allowed 6 on 19 shots (0.684) — 3.46 goals worse than expected.

Reassess the crease rotation before the next start.

STRENGTHSJS

A. Nedeljkovic stole it

A. Nedeljkovic stopped 21 of 21 (1.000) — +2.05 goals saved above expected in a 10-goal game.

72 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
30 shots
0
Final
72 shots
SJS
42 shots
10
ANA attackSJS attack
ANA SJS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, SJS 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. Misa
#77 · C · SJS
1 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 15:56 on ice · +3
I. Stenberg
#41 · L · SJS
3 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:23 on ice · +3
I. Chernyshov
#92 · L · SJS
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 14:34 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Sep 24
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The rates below are last season's; this exhibition will not count toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 25, 1:07 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 3.4–3.3 game with Anaheim at 51% win probability — about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The Ducks hold the territorial edge: they generate expected goals at 50.4% five-on-five, ahead of San Jose's 46.5%, and control shot attempts at 52.2% versus 47.0%. Anaheim's underlying play points in their direction. Their PDO of 0.981 signals positive regression after running cold; the Sharks sit at 0.998, their luck inverted.

But this matchup hinges on goaltending and availability. L. Dostal starts on a back-to-back with no rest, entering a game where both starters have disappointed: Dostal at 88.8% save percentage across 56 starts, Y. Askarov at 88.4% over 47. Goals saved above expected tells the deeper story — Dostal is minus-4.4, Askarov minus-15.8, an 11.3-goal gulf in the Ducks' favor. Yet fatigue could flatten that edge.

San Jose's advantage lives upfront. Tyler Toffoli drives the Sharks offense at 1.03 expected goals per 60 minutes with 11 goals and 30 assists, converting his five high-danger chances at 6.4%. Igor Chernyshov matches him at 0.96 per 60 with three high-danger goals on a 13.0% shooting rate. The Sharks score 51% of their goals from the slot; get there and you collapse their structure.

Anaheim counters with Frank Vatrano at 0.85 expected goals per 60, four goals and four assists, though his 5.1% shooting rate lags his volume. The Ducks generate 52% of their goals from the slot and score 40 rebound goals, 24% of their total. Pavel Mintyukov is their defensive liability, operating at 2.27 expected goals against per 60 with 105 high-danger shots against this season — a prime target for San Jose's top scorers.

Anaheim should control this game. Whether L. Dostal can hold it together on no rest is the only unknown that matters.

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 51%
51%
ANA
Model favorite
51%
49%
ANA50SJS

ANA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 3.4–3.3 SJS; 16% 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 →SJS
50.4%46.5%
52.2%47.0%
3.402.87
3.353.30
3.233.04
3.513.54
0.9810.998

ANA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 0.998) says SJS 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
SJS
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
SJS PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

WARNINGANA

L. Dostal on a back-to-back

L. Dostal projects to start on no rest, the second night of a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or tired legs.

Test the goalie early with traffic and second-chance pressure.

WARNINGANA

Exploitable minutes: Pavel Mintyukov

Pavel Mintyukov is on ice for 2.27 xGA/60 and 105 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Pavel Mintyukov's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGSJS

Exploitable minutes: Igor Chernyshov

Igor Chernyshov is on ice for 2.40 xGA/60 and 23 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Igor Chernyshov's shifts with the top line.

STRENGTHSJS

Tyler Toffoli drives the Sharks offense

Tyler Toffoli: 11G 30A, 1.03 xG/60, 5 high-danger goals.

Where the edges live
  • The Ducks own the underlying play — 50.4% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.2% — 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 — 50.4% 5v5 xG vs 46.5%.
  • The Ducks drive Corsi at 52.2% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Goalie matchup: L. Dostal (-4.4 GSAx in 56 GP, 88.8% SV) vs Y. Askarov (-15.8 GSAx in 47 GP, 88.4% SV).
  • L. Dostal has the GSAx edge — 11.3 goals above his counterpart this season.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
ANA
preseason · vs LAK · Wed, Sep 23
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
back-to-back.895 last start56:37 played
Backup Ville Husso · -3.8 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.
Forwards · 12
  • S. Colangelo13:48
  • N. Nesterenko15:59
  • R. Poehling18:31
  • J. Caulfield18:23
  • J. Malott13:52
  • N. Gaucher10:28
  • T. Washe18:43
  • Y. Sidorov18:12
  • E. Procyszyn13:28
  • C. Pitre10:06
  • F. Vatrano20:25
  • H. Traff11:05
Defence · 6
  • T. Mitchell16:07
  • N. Warren13:30
  • J. Kurtz16:19
  • K. Smith15:07
  • T. Luneau28:08
  • P. Mintyukov21:12
SJS
preseason · vs VGK · Tue, Sep 22
Expected in goal
Y. Askarov
1 day rest.957 last start65:00 played
Backup Alex Nedeljkovic · -4.5 GSAx this season
Forwards · 12
  • J. Huntington13:29
  • F. Bystedt16:58
  • A. Wennberg20:45
  • A. Gasseau13:46
  • I. Stenberg22:17
  • C. Graf15:30
  • P. Giles10:53
  • E. Cardwell15:49
  • C. Wetsch11:20
  • T. Toffoli16:01
  • M. Misa18:37
  • I. Chernyshov19:07
Defence · 6
  • N. Allan19:01
  • D. Orlov19:54
  • L. Cagnoni22:43
  • E. Pohlkamp22:04
  • P. Sinn19:01
  • J. Trouba19:10

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
ANA
Frank Vatrano4G 4A
0.85 xG/60 · 2 HD · 5.1% sh
SJS
Tyler Toffoli11G 30A
1.03 xG/60 · 5 HD · 6.4% sh
Igor Chernyshov6G 10A
0.96 xG/60 · 3 HD · 13.0% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page