Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
← Sun, Oct 4 · the slate
Breakdown · FLA at ANA

Granlund's overtime winner gives the Ducks a 3-2 win over the Panthers in the home opener

Final / OTSun, Oct 4
FLAFlorida Panthers2ANAAnaheim Ducks3
The verdict · stolen

The Ducks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.09–2.27 and won anyway.

FLA 2 · ANA 3
◆ By the ModelOct 4, 11:01 PMxG: 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

The Ducks beat the Panthers 3-2 in overtime at Honda Center, their first regular-season home game. Florida had the better chances: 4.09 expected goals to Anaheim's 2.27, and five high-danger chances to Anaheim's one. Anaheim won it on special teams and in net.

Special teams. Every Ducks goal came on the power play. Anaheim went 3 for 4 with the man advantage and Florida went 0 for 4. Lukas Dostal stopped all seven shots he faced while Anaheim was shorthanded.

In net. Dostal made 29 saves on 31 shots, 2.09 goals saved above expected by our model, and stopped all five of Florida's high-danger shots. Jacob Markstrom stopped 18 of 21 for Florida, 0.73 goals below expected.

The players. Mikael Granlund, in his first home game as Ducks captain, tipped in the winner on a 4-on-3 power play at 4:14 of overtime. Cutter Gauthier scored both of Anaheim's regulation goals, his first two of the season, and assisted on the winner. Leo Carlsson had three assists and has five points in two games.

How it went. Gauthier opened the scoring on the power play at 16:18 of the first. Carter Verhaeghe tied it 51 seconds later on a tip from nine feet. Gauthier scored again on the power play 47 seconds into the second. Brad Marchand tied it at 18:10 of the third with Florida's goalie pulled for an extra attacker.

Faceoffs. Florida won 32 of 58 draws. Tim Washe was Anaheim's best at 11 of 18. Anaheim blocked 20 shots to Florida's 11.

Three Stars

  • #61 C. Gauthier (ANA) — 2G, 1A
  • #91 L. Carlsson (ANA) — 3A
  • #2 J. LaCombe (ANA) — 1A

The goals

  • ANA 0–1, 16:18 of the first on the power play. C. Gauthier, snap shot from 44 feet, a 5% chance by the model, past J. Markstrom. Assists: J. LaCombe, L. Carlsson. 8 seconds after an ANA missed shot by M. Granlund. Win probability moved 17 points.
  • FLA 1–1, 17:09 of the first. C. Verhaeghe, tip-in from 9 feet, a 6% chance by the model (a rebound), past L. Dostal. Assists: S. Bennett, M. Tkachuk. 3 seconds after a FLA shot by S. Bennett. Win probability moved 17 points.
  • ANA 1–2, 00:47 of the second on the power play. C. Gauthier, snap shot from 29 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Markstrom. Assists: B. Sennecke, L. Carlsson. Win probability moved 18 points.
  • FLA 2–2, 18:10 of the third, six-on-five with Florida's goalie pulled. B. Marchand, wrist shot from 6 feet, a 12% chance by the model (a rebound), past L. Dostal. Assists: L. Eller. 2 seconds after a FLA shot by L. Eller. Win probability moved 42 points.
  • ANA 2–3, 04:14 of overtime on the power play. M. Granlund, tip-in from 8 feet, a 6% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Markstrom. Assists: L. Carlsson, C. Gauthier. Win probability moved 50 points.

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 · OT · Oct 4
FLA
2
ANA
3

Granlund's overtime winner gives the Ducks a 3-2 win over the Panthers in the home opener

Chances 4.1 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
FLA
4.09
ANA
2.27
64% of the chances36%

The board read FLA 2, ANA 3. The chances read FLA 4.1, ANA 2.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
+0.7
goals above expected
ANA2.27 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA4.09 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Panthers left 2.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+50
win-probability points
50% → 100% for ANA
ANA 100%the game, start to finish
FLA 100%P1 · P2 · P3
ANAOT 04:14 · PP

M. Granlund makes it 2–3.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 16:18ANAC. GauthierPP5%0–1
  2. P1 17:09FLAC. Verhaeghe6%1–1
  3. P2 00:47ANAC. GauthierPP14%1–2
  4. P3 18:10FLAB. MarchandPP12%2–2
  5. OT 04:14ANAM. GranlundPP6%2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
FLA
51 shots
2
Final
82 shots
ANA
31 shots
3
FLA attackANA attack
FLA ANA Goal
51
shots · 2 in
31
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
FLAANA
0 / 5
1.18 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.19 xG
2 / 22
2.30 xG
Medium
2 / 16
1.70 xG
0 / 45
0.61 xG
Low
1 / 26
0.39 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
L. Dostal
+2.1
ANA · 29/31 · 63:43
Best save · a 32% chance, snap from 19 ft · P4 01:14
D
J. Markstrom
−0.7
FLA · 18/21 · 63:43
Best save · a 19% chance, snap from 21 ft · P1 12:36
Best skater on the ice
A+
ANA
C. Gauthier
L · impact 2.25
20:50
Ice time
2–1
G – A
0.43
Own xG
35%
xG share
Impact · top 4
C. Gauthier2.3A+
L. Carlsson1.9A+
B. Marchand1.3A+
S. Bennett1.2A
Report card
FLAANA
OffenseA+C-
DefenseC+F
TransitionB+D-
Special teamsFA+
GoaltendingD+A
DisciplineCC
LuckFA+
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why ANA won
  1. 01Won against the run of play
  2. 02L. Dostal stole it
  3. 03Power play cashed in
Why FLA lost
  1. 01Deserved a better fate
  2. 02Rush defense leaked all night
  3. 03Cold finishing night
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Granlund's overtime winner gives the Ducks a 3-2 win over the Panthers in the home opener

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 9–6
  1. 16:18ANAC. Gauthierpower play(J. LaCombe, L. Carlsson)0–1

    Snap shot from 44 feet, a 5% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past J. Markstrom. 8s after an ANA miss by M. Granlund. Win probability moved 17 points.On the ice: J. Caulfield, J. LaCombe, J. Malott, T. Luneau, T. Washe · against B. Marchand, D. Kulikov, S. Reinhart, G. Forsling, B. Tkachuk

  2. 17:09FLAC. Verhaeghe(S. Bennett, M. Tkachuk)1–1

    Tip-in from 9 feet, a 6% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (a rebound), past L. Dostal. 3s after a FLA shot by S. Bennett. Win probability moved 17 points.On the ice: R. Gudas, E. Luostarinen, A. Lundell, S. Vilmanis, U. Balinskis · against A. Killorn, M. Granlund, P. Mintyukov, T. Mitchell, B. Sennecke

2ndshots 9–8
  1. 00:47ANAC. Gauthierpower play(B. Sennecke, L. Carlsson)1–2

    Snap shot from 29 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Markstrom. Win probability moved 18 points.On the ice: R. Poehling, J. LaCombe, N. Nesterenko, S. Colangelo, T. Luneau · against D. Kulikov, C. Verhaeghe, S. Bennett, G. Forsling, M. Tkachuk

3rdshots 9–3
  1. 18:10FLAB. Marchandpower play(L. Eller)2–2

    Wrist shot from 6 feet, a 12% chance (a rebound), past L. Dostal. 2s after a FLA shot by L. Eller. Win probability moved 42 points.

OTshots 4–4
  1. 04:14ANAM. Granlundpower play(L. Carlsson, C. Gauthier)2–3

    Tip-in from 8 feet, a 6% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past J. Markstrom. Win probability moved 50 points.

score reads FLA–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.27
ANA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.042
ANA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
37.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.09Expected goals2.27
FLA 64% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal21
5High-danger chances1
72All attempts (Corsi)43
Adjusted for score: FLA 65% · ANA 35%
Faceoffs · ANA won35%off40%neu54%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
FLA0 / 5 · 1.18 xG
ANA0 / 1 · 0.19 xG
Medium dangermid-range
FLA2 / 22 · 2.30 xG
ANA2 / 16 · 1.70 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
FLA0 / 45 · 0.61 xG
ANA1 / 26 · 0.39 xG

FLA went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.18 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
FLA
2 G · 4.09 xG · -2.1
ANA
3 G · 2.27 xG · +0.7
012345

FLA finished -2.1 against expected, ANA +0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
FLA
SNAP0/22
WRIST1/14
BACKHAND0/8
TIP IN1/4
SLAP0/2
BAT0/1
POKE0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/21
ANA
SNAP2/10
WRIST0/6
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN1/4
SLAP0/5
BAT0/0
POKE0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/12
FLA
ANA
Off the rush
0 G on 29
2.77 xG
2 G on 20
1.88 xG
Off rebounds
2 G on 8
0.65 xG
0 G on 3
0.20 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: FLA went 0-for-22, ANA 2-for-10. ANA scored 2 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
J. Markstrom
FLA · 18/21 · .857
started · 63:43 · OT loss
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
Attempts faced
31
Avg chance faced
7.3%
Stopped vs expected
0.903 vs 0.927
Rebounds allowed
3
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium2/161.7-0.3
Low1/140.4-0.6
Shorthanded3/91.0-2.0
Tips & deflections1/50.4-0.6
The save
19% chance stopped, a snap from 21 ft · P1 12:36
The one to have back
5% chance went in, a snap from 44 ft · P1 16:18

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 · 29/31 · .935
started · 63:43 · win
+2.1
saved above expected
A
the night
Attempts faced
51
Avg chance faced
8.0%
Stopped vs expected
0.961 vs 0.920
Rebounds allowed
8 · 2 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.2+1.2
Medium2/222.3+0.3
Low0/240.6+0.6
Shorthanded1/120.9-0.1
Tips & deflections1/40.2-0.8
The save
32% chance stopped, a snap from 19 ft · P4 01:14
The one to have back
6% chance went in, a tip-in from 9 ft · P1 17:09

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: C. Gauthier (ANA), 20:50 of ice, 2-1, 35% of the expected goals while he was out.

FLA18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
B. MarchandL13:101-075A+
S. BennettC21:520-157A
L. EllerC11:270-171A
C. VerhaegheC19:181-050A
B. TkachukL16:020-091A
S. VilmanisL13:380-077B
M. TkachukL23:280-159B
S. ReinhartC22:190-076B
A. LundellC17:330-077B
G. HathawayR9:300-071B
S. JonesD28:350-065C
R. GudasD15:470-073C
N. MikkolaD20:170-069C
U. BalinskisD14:400-0100C
B. ImamaL7:450-0100D
E. LuostarinenC16:120-057D
D. KulikovD17:490-048D
G. ForslingD20:250-046D
ANA18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
C. GauthierL20:502-135A+
L. CarlssonC20:260-335A+
B. SenneckeR21:440-134A
M. GranlundC22:311-025B
J. LaCombeD28:410-146B
S. ColangeloR10:240-076C
R. PoehlingC14:550-080C
J. MalottL7:560-075C
T. HindsD14:440-039C
N. NesterenkoC10:240-078D
N. WarrenD15:590-042D
J. CaulfieldR9:490-041D
T. LuneauD26:360-030D
T. MitchellD14:060-028F
A. KillornL16:320-014F
P. MintyukovD19:500-022F
T. WasheC16:240-013F
A. GreerL15:020-021F

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, FLA: A. Petrovic, A. Ekblad, S. Lafferty. Scratched, ANA: N. Jensen, F. Vatrano, N. Klepov. Referees Chris Schlenker and Michael Markovic; linesmen Tommy Hughes and Travis Toomey.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionFLAANA
Offense
▸Basis

FLA Created 4.09 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 5 high-danger shots (1.18 xG) and 29 rush shots (2.77 xG).

ANA Created 2.27 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 1 high-danger shots (0.19 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.88 xG).

A+
97
C-
72
Defense
▸Basis

FLA Allowed 2.27 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 1 high-danger shots (0.19 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.88 xG).

ANA Allowed 4.09 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 5 high-danger shots (1.18 xG) and 29 rush shots (2.77 xG).

C+
78
F
52
Transition
▸Basis

FLA Rush shots 29–20, rush xG 2.77–1.88 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

ANA Rush shots 20–29, rush xG 1.88–2.77 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

B+
88
D-
62
Special teams
▸Basis

FLA 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.74 PP xG.

ANA 3-for-4 on the power play (75%; league ≈21%) with 0.83 PP xG.

F
55
A+
100
Goaltending
▸Basis

FLA -0.73 goals saved above expected on 21 shots against.

ANA +2.09 goals saved above expected on 31 shots against.

D+
68
A
96
Discipline
▸Basis

FLA Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

ANA Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

C
75
C
75
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

FLA Finishing -2.09 goals vs xG plus -0.73 GSAx of save luck = -2.82 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

ANA Finishing +0.73 goals vs xG plus +2.09 GSAx of save luck = +2.82 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

F
52
A+
98
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
SURPRISEANA

Won against the run of play

The Ducks took it 3-2 in overtime with only 36% of expected goals (2.27–4.09).

STRENGTHANA

L. Dostal stole it

L. Dostal stopped 29 of 31 (0.935) — +2.09 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.

WARNINGFLA

Deserved a better fate

The Panthers controlled 64% of expected goals (4.09 to 2.27) and still lost — the process was there, the finish wasn't.

Change nothing structurally — this loss was variance, not process.

STRENGTHANA

Power play cashed in

3-for-4 on the power play (75%) on 0.83 PP xG.

WARNINGFLA

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 20 rush shots worth 1.88 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

WARNINGANA

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 29 rush shots worth 2.77 xG (0 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
FLA
51 shots
2
Final
82 shots
ANA
31 shots
3
FLA attackANA attack
FLA ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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
C. Gauthier
#61 · L · ANA
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:50 on ice
L. Carlsson
#91 · C · ANA
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 20:26 on ice · -1
J. LaCombe
#2 · D · ANA
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 28:41 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Oct 4
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 10, 5:51 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 3.2–3.2 game with the Ducks at 50% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as hockey gets.

Florida dominates the underlying play. The Panthers control 57.7% of expected goals at 5-on-5, meaning they're generating better shot quality than Anaheim's 49.0%. On shot attempts alone, Florida drives play even more decisively at 59.5%, which should produce sustained territorial pressure. The Ducks, though, are running hot. Anaheim's PDO sits at 1.017—a measure of how lucky teams are getting on conversion—suggesting they've been outperforming their talent level and are due for regression. Florida's PDO of 1.030 tells the same story: both teams are beating expectation, and that gap will close.

The goaltending matchup features A. Schmid at minus-1.1 expected saves in one game (87.5% save percentage) against L. Dostal at minus-0.8 in four games (88.3%). Both are running below their true talent. Schmid has a critical vulnerability: he saves only 33.3% of high-danger chances, making the crease a liability for Florida. This matters because both teams live by conversion from the slot. Anaheim has 7 goals on 37 slot attempts (19%), an exceptional rate that won't hold. Florida has 4 on 52 slot attempts (8%)—more sustainable, but they need to start finishing that volume.

The matchup boils down to Florida's superior underlying play against Anaheim's unsustainable goaltending luck and shooting. If the Ducks' PDO regresses and Schmid tightens up, Florida's shot quality and shot volume should carry the day. If Anaheim's hot hand persists, the Ducks steal a win. The model's pick'em reflects that genuine toss-up—the better team doesn't always win when both are statistically flipped a coin.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 50%
50%
ANA
Model favorite
50%
50%
FLA50ANA

ANA by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score FLA 3.2–3.2 ANA; 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
FLA← edge
edge →ANA
57.7%49.0%
59.5%48.2%
3.192.68
2.352.79
2.003.50
2.002.75
1.0301.017

FLA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.030 vs 1.017) says FLA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 1–2
FLA
1-0-1
+0 GD · 2d rest
ANA
1-0-0
+1 GD · 1d rest
1.030
FLA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.017
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICAL

The Panthers own the underlying play

The Panthers own the underlying play — 57.7% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.

TACTICAL

The Panthers drive Corsi at 59.5%

The Panthers drive Corsi at 59.5% — expect territorial tilt.

TACTICALFLA

Goalie Weakness: Panthers

Below-average on high-danger saves. Prioritize quality over quantity.

Their goalie (Akira Schmid) leaks HD — 33.3% HD SV. Get to the slot.

WARNINGANA

Regression watch: Ducks

The Ducks' PDO is 1.017 — running hot, expect some regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

Where the edges live
  • The Panthers own the underlying play — 57.7% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 59.5% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 1.017 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Panthers' PDO is 1.030 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Panthers own the underlying play — 57.7% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Panthers drive Corsi at 59.5% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Goalie matchup: A. Schmid (-1.1 GSAx in 1 GP, 87.5% SV) vs L. Dostal (-0.8 GSAx in 4 GP, 88.3% SV).
  • The Ducks' PDO is 1.017 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
FLA
Expected in goal
A. Schmid
2 days rest.875 last start
Backup Jacob Markstrom · +1.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

ANA
Expected in goal
L. Dostal
1 day rest.900 last start
Backup Ville Husso · +0.3 GSAx this season

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.

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page