Backcheck
Recap · ANA at VGK

Ducks steal one from the Golden Knights against the run of play

The Ducks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.23–4.71 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 3:10 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
ANA
Anaheim Ducks
4
Home
VGK
Vegas Golden Knights
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.23Expected goals4.71
59% share for the better side
29Shot attempts (SOG)39
5High-danger chances5
61Corsi (all attempts)74
Score-adjusted: 44% / 56%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Anaheim won 4–3 in overtime despite losing the xG battle 4.71–3.23. The Golden Knights controlled 59% of expected goals at 5v5—they should have won.

The Golden Knights dominated possession. They held 57% of shot attempts and 39 shots to Anaheim's 29, but precision and goaltending betrayed them. P. Mrazek (ANA) stopped 36 of 39 shots with a 0.923 save percentage, saving 1.71 goals above expected. A. Schmid (VGK) made 25 of 29 saves at 0.862, underperforming his xG by 0.77. The gap between what each team created and what it scored was the margin of the game.

The Golden Knights stumbled on high-danger chances—0 for 5 on prime scoring opportunities. Anaheim finished 5 for 5. Vegas was lethal on the rush with 2 goals on 34 chances, but Anaheim converted at a higher rate: 3 goals on 27 attempts. Jacob Trouba's backhander from the doorstep at 04:28 of overtime sealed it.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA1 / 5 · 1.01 xG
VGK0 / 5 · 1.19 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA3 / 12 · 1.34 xG
VGK3 / 25 · 2.92 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 44 · 0.88 xG
VGK0 / 44 · 0.60 xG

ANA went 3-for-12 from medium danger on 1.34 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
4 G · 3.23 xG · +0.8
VGK
3 G · 4.71 xG · -1.7
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
P. MrazekANA
+1.7
A. SchmidVGK
-0.8

ANA finished +0.8 against expected, VGK -1.7 — P. Mrazek (ANA) saved 1.7 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST0/19
SNAP1/11
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND2/5
SLAP0/4
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/14
VGK
WRIST0/24
SNAP3/13
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/5
SLAP0/5
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/21
ANA
VGK
Off the rush
3 G on 27 · 1.96 xG
2 G on 34 · 3.58 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6 · 0.68 xG
0 G on 4 · 0.30 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 0-for-19, VGK 0-for-24. ANA scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
L. Carlsson
#91 · C · ANA
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 21:42 TOI · +2
J. Trouba
#65 · D · ANA
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 26:36 TOI · +3
O. Zellweger
#51 · D · ANA
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 23:31 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • ANA stole this one. VGK owned 59% of the xG and lost.
  • P. Mrazek (ANA) stopped 1.7 goals above expected.
  • VGK couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • VGK was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 34 rush chances.
  • ANA was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 27 rush chances.
  • VGK created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • ANA created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VGK underperformed xG by 1.7 — wasted quality chances.
  • P. Mrazek (ANA) saved 1.7 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • P. Mrazek was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · ANA at VGK · 10:00 PM ET

Ducks at Golden Knights: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 3:09 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

54%
VGK
Model favorite
46%
54%
ANA50VGK

VGK by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score ANA 2.52.7 VGK; 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 →VGK
52.0%5v5 xG%54.0%
52.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.80xGF / 602.52
2.59xGA / 602.11
2.09Goals for / gm2.12
2.32Goals against / gm2.10
0.981PDO — luck, not skill0.983

VGK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.981 vs 0.983) says VGK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.5–2.7 goal game with Vegas at 54% win probability. That's as close to even as sports gets.

The underlying numbers explain the tightness. Anaheim owns 52.0% expected goals share at 5v5; Vegas owns 54.0%—a meaningful but not decisive separation in chance creation. Corsi is a perfect tie at 52.0% for both. Both teams are running cold on PDO (Anaheim at 0.981, Vegas at 0.983), meaning both are due for regression toward average. In a game this close, that swing matters.

Vegas's edge tilts on depth. Tomas Hertl (0.88 xG/60, 5 goals, 17 assists) creates chances consistently even in a down season; Brandon Saad (0.91 xG/60) has just 3 goals despite above-average shot quality, a drought waiting to snap. Anaheim's young wings work the other side. Beckett Sennecke (1.03 xG/60, 20 goals, 13.5% shooting) creates and capitalizes at equal rates. Cutter Gauthier (0.99 xG/60, 25 goals, 12.9% shooting) does the same at higher volume.

The variable is goaltending. Both C. Lindbom and L. Dostal are on back-to-backs, meaning tired starters or unproven backups may see action.

A 54% lean isn't a forecast—it's a hedge. This is as close as the model gets to a coin flip.

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
VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters