The Ducks won 7-5 against a Bruins team that controlled the game — and got nothing for it. Boston held 58% of shot attempts (42–30 on goal), but the underlying metrics told a different story: Anaheim's efficiency at even strength was lethal, and the Bruins' goaltending offered no resistance.

The expected-goals split was nearly even at 4.17–4.33 in Anaheim's favor. Where the game tilted was in shot quality: the Ducks recorded 8 high-danger chances to Boston's 5, and more importantly, generated 0.069 expected goals per shot compared to Boston's 0.051. That margin compounds across 30 shots.

The goaltending gap was decisive. J. Korpisalo's 23/29 performance (0.793 SV%) cost the Bruins 1.67 goals against expectation; P. Mrazek's 37/42 (0.881 SV%) was only 0.83 below par. One goalie collapses, one competes — the margin between 7-5 and a much tighter game.

Anaheim's rush game was the difference: 6 goals on 33 chances. Boston managed 2. The Ducks scored 2 goals from low-danger spots despite outchancing the Bruins everywhere else, while Boston's 3 low-danger tallies were a consequence of being pressed all game.

Three Stars

• M. Granlund (ANA) — 2G, 3A in 20:46
• N. Nesterenko (ANA) — 4A in 15:17
• J. Trouba (ANA) — 1G, 1A in 28:34

The model calls this one a toss-up: Anaheim projects to 2.7 goals, Boston to 2.6, with the Ducks at 52% win probability. It's as close to a true coin flip as you'll get.

The underlying play belongs to the Ducks. Anaheim owns 52.0% of expected goals and 52.0% of Corsi at 5v5—meaningful territorial control that translates to the slight edge in win probability. This isn't dominant; it's the kind of advantage that a hot goaltender or cold streak erases in one evening.

Both teams are vulnerable to variance. Boston's 1.023 PDO reveals a team running hot; regression is coming. Anaheim's 0.981 PDO is the inverse—the Ducks are running cold and due for positive regression. Over time, those gaps close.

The wrinkle: L. Dostal is on a back-to-back. Whether the Ducks start their backup or ask their starter to carry extra fatigue matters. A tired starter can shrink that xG advantage fast.

Beckett Sennecke (20G, 1.03 xG/60, 8 HD goals) and Cutter Gauthier (25G, 12.9% shooting, 0.99 xG/60) anchor Anaheim's offense. Sennecke's net-front production and Gauthier's volume are the forces Boston must contain. Viktor Arvidsson (18G, 24A, 1.04 xG/60) leads Boston's response—his assist total suggests he's a distribution point as much as a scorer. Tanner Jeannot (6G, 14A, 0.75 xG/60) provides secondary punch.

Defensively, Mason McTavish is Anaheim's weak link. Elias Lindholm carries that burden for Boston. This is the kind of game models struggle with: tight fundamentals, narrow edges, and genuine uncertainty. The Ducks' territorial advantage and Boston's hot PDO cut against each other. The xG rates are close enough that execution matters more than raw advantage. Back-to-back fatigue is the real determinant.