Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Anaheim Ducks sweater
← Sat, Oct 10 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at CGY

Ducks hold off the Flames

FinalSat, Oct 10
ANAAnaheim Ducks4CGYCalgary Flames2
The verdict · earned

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

ANA 4 · CGY 2
◆ By the ModelOct 11, 1:01 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

Anaheim beat Calgary 4-2, and the Ducks had the better of the play to go with it. Nikita Nesterenko's poke from the doorstep late in the third settled a game that Calgary kept fighting back into.

Anaheim controlled 57% of the expected goals at five-on-five. Expected goals weigh the quality of chances, not just their number, so this says the Ducks were getting the better looks, not simply more of them.

Calgary's problem was finishing. The Flames scored 1.23 goals fewer than their chances were worth. Call it variance: the chances were there, and the finishing was not.

V. Husso was the difference in net. He stopped 27 of 29 shots, a save percentage of .931, and he kept out more than the shots he faced should have allowed. D. Wolf, in Calgary's net, stopped 24 of 28 shots, a save percentage of .857.

Anaheim opened the scoring on the power play, when J. LaCombe beat D. Wolf with a snap shot from ten feet off the rush. Calgary tied it at 15:03 when M. Frost beat V. Husso with a wrist shot from seven feet. F. Vatrano put Anaheim back ahead with a deflection from five feet at 19:15. A. Suniev evened it again at 17:54 of the second with a wrist shot from 16 feet. R. Poehling scored shorthanded at 05:35 of the third, on a snap shot from 29 feet. N. Nesterenko's poke from six feet at 17:03 of the third made it 4-2.

Off the rush, Anaheim scored three goals on 21 chances. Calgary took 27 rush chances and scored two.

Three Stars

  • #27 M. Coronato, Calgary: two assists in 19:47
  • #64 M. Granlund, Anaheim: two assists in 19:23
  • #25 R. Poehling, Anaheim: one goal and one assist in 11:49

The numbers can't say whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, or who was hurt. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The goals

  • ANA 1–0, 10:02 of the first on the power play. J. LaCombe, snap shot from 10 feet, a 20% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Wolf. Assists: L. Carlsson, M. Granlund. 10 seconds after an ANA faceoff win by M. Granlund. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • CGY 1–1, 15:03 of the first. M. Frost, wrist shot from 7 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past V. Husso. Assists: M. Coronato, S. Nemec. Win probability moved 17 points.
  • ANA 2–1, 19:15 of the first. F. Vatrano, deflection from 5 feet, a 16% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Wolf. Assists: R. Poehling, N. Warren. Win probability moved 19 points.
  • CGY 2–2, 17:54 of the second. A. Suniev, wrist shot from 16 feet, a 4% chance by the model (off the rush), past V. Husso. Assists: M. Coronato. Win probability moved 25 points.
  • ANA 3–2, 05:35 of the third shorthanded. R. Poehling, snap shot from 29 feet, a 32% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Wolf. Assists: P. Mintyukov. Win probability moved 29 points.
  • ANA 4–2, 17:03 of the third. N. Nesterenko, poke from 6 feet, a 20% chance by the model, past D. Wolf. Assists: A. Killorn, M. Granlund. 4 seconds after an ANA shot by A. Killorn. Win probability moved 9 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 · Oct 10
ANA
4
CGY
2

Ducks hold off the Flames

Chances 4.2 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Ducks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
4.23
CGY
3.23
57% of the chances43%

The board read ANA 4, CGY 2. The chances read ANA 4.2, CGY 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
ANA
−0.2
goals above expected
ANA4.23 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY3.23 expected · 2 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
The swing
+29
win-probability points
47% → 77% for ANA
CGY 100%the game, start to finish
ANA 100%P1 · P2 · P3
ANAP3 05:35 · SH

R. Poehling makes it 3–2.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 10:02ANAJ. LaCombePP20%1–0
  2. P1 15:03CGYM. Frost14%1–1
  3. P1 19:15ANAF. Vatrano16%2–1
  4. P2 17:54CGYA. Suniev4%2–2
  5. P3 05:35ANAR. PoehlingSH32%3–2
  6. P3 17:03ANAN. Nesterenko20%4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
40 shots
4
Final
84 shots
CGY
44 shots
2
ANA attackCGY attack
ANA CGY Goal
40
shots · 4 in
44
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANACGY
3 / 8
2.61 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.61 xG
1 / 11
1.23 xG
Medium
1 / 22
2.24 xG
0 / 37
0.39 xG
Low
1 / 45
0.38 xG

The Flames went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
V. Husso
+1.2
ANA · 27/29 · 60:00
Best save · a 22% chance, snap from 9 ft · P3 19:30
D-
D. Wolf
−1.1
CGY · 24/28 · 57:11
Best save · a 20% chance, wrist from 13 ft · P3 12:41
Best skater on the ice
A+
ANA
R. Poehling
C · impact 1.77
11:49
Ice time
1–1
G – A
0.40
Own xG
35%
xG share
Impact · top 4
R. Poehling1.8A+
M. Granlund1.6A+
N. Nesterenko1.3A+
M. Coronato1.2A
Report card
ANACGY
OffenseA+B
DefenseDF
TransitionD+B-
Special teamsA+F
GoaltendingB+C+
DisciplineC-B-
LuckBD+
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why ANA won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Clinical in the slot
  3. 03V. Husso tilted the crease
Why CGY lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02D. Wolf was beaten from the slot
  3. 03Cold finishing night
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Ducks hold off the Flames

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 10–9
  1. 10:02ANAJ. LaCombepower play(L. Carlsson, M. Granlund)1–0

    Snap shot from 10 feet, a 20% chance (off the rush), past D. Wolf. 10s after an ANA faceoff win by M. Granlund. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: A. Killorn, F. Vatrano, R. Poehling, J. LaCombe, N. Warren · against R. Strome, K. Bahl, M. Pospisil, S. Nemec, M. Gridin

  2. 15:03CGYM. Frost(M. Coronato, S. Nemec)1–1

    Wrist shot from 7 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past V. Husso. Win probability moved 17 points.On the ice: R. Strome, J. Middleton, M. Pospisil, Z. Parekh, M. Gridin · against A. Killorn, F. Vatrano, R. Poehling, P. Mintyukov, T. Mitchell

  3. 19:15ANAF. Vatrano(R. Poehling, N. Warren)2–1

    Deflection from 5 feet, a 16% chance (off the rush), past D. Wolf. Win probability moved 19 points.On the ice: M. Granlund, N. Nesterenko, P. Mintyukov, N. Warren, L. Carlsson · against M. Backlund, Z. Whitecloud, J. Farabee, Y. Sharangovich, Y. Kuznetsov

2ndshots 10–12
  1. 17:54CGYA. Suniev(M. Coronato)2–2

    Wrist shot from 16 feet, a 4% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past V. Husso. Win probability moved 25 points.On the ice: M. Backlund, J. Farabee, K. Bahl, Y. Sharangovich, S. Nemec · against M. Granlund, T. Luneau, L. Carlsson, T. Mitchell, B. Sennecke

3rdshots 8–8
  1. 05:35ANAR. Poehlingshorthanded(P. Mintyukov)3–2

    Snap shot from 29 feet, a 32% chance (off the rush), past D. Wolf. Win probability moved 29 points.

  2. 17:03ANAN. Nesterenko(A. Killorn, M. Granlund)4–2

    Poke from 6 feet, a 20% chance, past D. Wolf. 4s after an ANA shot by A. Killorn. Win probability moved 9 points.

score reads ANA–CGY

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.23
ANA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.043
ANA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.23Expected goals3.23
ANA 57% of the chance quality
28Shots on goal29
8High-danger chances3
56All attempts (Corsi)70
Adjusted for score: ANA 42% · CGY 58%
Faceoffs · CGY won48%off71%neu33%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA3 / 8 · 2.61 xG
CGY0 / 3 · 0.61 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA1 / 11 · 1.23 xG
CGY1 / 22 · 2.24 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 37 · 0.39 xG
CGY1 / 45 · 0.38 xG

CGY went 1-for-22 from medium danger on 2.24 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
4 G · 4.23 xG · -0.2
CGY
2 G · 3.23 xG · -1.2
012345

ANA finished -0.2 against expected, CGY -1.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST0/21
SNAP2/6
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/3
POKE1/1
DEFLECTED1/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/16
CGY
WRIST2/26
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/3
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/26
ANA
CGY
Off the rush
3 G on 21
1.79 xG
2 G on 27
2.17 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.45 xG
0 G on 6
0.78 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-21, CGY 2-for-26. ANA scored 3 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 · 27/29 · .931
started · 60:00 · win
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
Attempts faced
44
Avg chance faced
7.3%
Stopped vs expected
0.955 vs 0.927
Rebounds allowed
6
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.6+0.6
Medium1/222.2+1.2
Low1/190.4-0.6
Shorthanded0/60.6+0.6
Tips & deflections0/40.3+0.3
The save
22% chance stopped, a snap from 9 ft · P3 19:30
The one to have back
4% chance went in, a wrist from 16 ft · P2 17:54

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

D. Wolf
CGY · 24/28 · .857
started · 57:11 · loss
-1.1
saved above expected
D-
the night
Attempts faced
38
Avg chance faced
7.6%
Stopped vs expected
0.895 vs 0.924
Rebounds allowed
5
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/61.3-1.7
Medium1/111.2+0.2
Low0/210.4+0.4
Shorthanded1/10.2-0.8
Tips & deflections1/50.4-0.6
The save
20% chance stopped, a wrist from 13 ft · P3 12:41
The one to have back
16% chance went in, a deflected from 5 ft · P1 19:15

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: R. Poehling (ANA), 11:49 of ice, 1-1, 35% of the expected goals while he was out.

ANA18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
R. PoehlingC11:491-135A+
M. GranlundC19:230-260A+
N. NesterenkoC14:041-068A+
F. VatranoR11:481-029A
L. CarlssonC20:180-155A
A. KillornL18:370-135A
N. WarrenD21:140-148B
J. LaCombeD17:011-036B
P. MintyukovD19:490-139C
J. MalottL11:370-061C
T. HindsD19:210-062C
T. LuneauD23:420-053D
C. GauthierL2:180-0100D
B. SenneckeR20:370-051D
T. WasheC16:400-037F
S. ColangeloR14:190-037F
T. MitchellD17:320-014F
J. CaulfieldR13:510-025F
CGY18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
M. CoronatoR19:470-219A
A. SunievL15:491-051A
K. BahlD21:260-070B
S. NemecD23:370-158B
M. PospisilC11:020-069B
R. StromeC13:390-070B
J. FarabeeL21:100-049B
J. CastagnaC9:510-088C
M. FrostC16:581-01C
M. GridinR14:540-052C
M. TsyplakovR11:280-082C
Y. SharangovichC22:110-055C
Z. WhitecloudD19:010-068D
A. KlapkaR11:350-082D
M. BacklundC19:240-054D
Y. KuznetsovD18:190-052D
J. MiddletonD12:400-050D
Z. ParekhD17:480-048F

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: N. Jensen, A. Greer, N. Klepov. Scratched, CGY: J. Hanley, B. Othmann, S. Honzek. Referees Wes McCauley and Jake Brenk; linesmen Kiel Murchison and Ryan Daisy.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionANACGY
Offense
▸Basis

ANA Created 4.23 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 8 high-danger shots (2.61 xG) and 21 rush shots (1.79 xG).

CGY Created 3.23 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.61 xG) and 27 rush shots (2.17 xG).

A+
100
B
84
Defense
▸Basis

ANA Allowed 3.23 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.61 xG) and 27 rush shots (2.17 xG).

CGY Allowed 4.23 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 8 high-danger shots (2.61 xG) and 21 rush shots (1.79 xG).

D
66
F
49
Transition
▸Basis

ANA Rush shots 21–27, rush xG 1.79–2.17 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

CGY Rush shots 27–21, rush xG 2.17–1.79 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

D+
68
B-
82
Special teams
▸Basis

ANA 1-for-2 on the power play (50%; league ≈21%) with 0.20 PP xG.

CGY 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.24 PP xG.

A+
100
F
51
Goaltending
▸Basis

ANA +1.23 goals saved above expected on 29 shots against.

CGY +0.23 goals saved above expected on 28 shots against.

B+
87
C+
77
Discipline
▸Basis

ANA Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.

CGY Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

C-
70
B-
80
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

ANA Finishing -0.23 goals vs xG plus +1.23 GSAx of save luck = +1.00 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

CGY Finishing -1.23 goals vs xG plus +0.23 GSAx of save luck = -1.00 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

B
83
D+
67
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGCGY

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 21 rush shots worth 1.79 xG (3 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 27 rush shots worth 2.17 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHANA

Dangerous off the rush

3 goals on 21 rush shots worth 1.79 xG.

STRENGTHCGY

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 27 rush shots worth 2.17 xG.

STRENGTHANA

Clinical in the slot

3 goals on 8 high-danger shots (38% conversion on 2.61 xG).

WARNINGCGY

D. Wolf was beaten from the slot

D. Wolf stopped only 50% of 6 high-danger shots (3 goals against from the inner slot).

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
40 shots
4
Final
84 shots
CGY
44 shots
2
ANA attackCGY attack
ANA CGY Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA left, CGY 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. Coronato
#27 · R · CGY
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 19:47 on ice
M. Granlund
#64 · C · ANA
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 19:23 on ice · -1
R. Poehling
#25 · C · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 11:49 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page