Ducks run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers
The Ducks earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
The underlying story
The Ducks won 4-1, but Winnipeg's frustration—having more high-danger chances yet fewer goals—best captures the evening's mismatch.
At 5v5, Anaheim controlled 67% of expected goals (4.72–2.33)—the result of superior volume (35 attempts to 13) and quality (0.077 xG/shot versus 0.057). The Ducks should have won bigger, yet underperformed their xG by 0.72 goals. Winnipeg underperformed by 1.33—a critical miss in the high-danger zone.
Winnipeg held the high-danger advantage, 5–4. But it converted zero of five; Anaheim cashed 50%, going 2-for-4. L. Dostal's perfect save percentage on high-danger attempts (100%, five stops) starved Winnipeg of its most dangerous looks. He stopped 1.3 goals above expected.
C. Hellebuyck saved 1.7 goals above expected, an outstanding salvage operation. Yet the Ducks' shot-quality advantage proved decisive—Anaheim was clinical where it counted.
Beyond the high-danger zones, Anaheim's rush attack proved lethal. The Ducks scored twice on 32 rush chances.
The turning point came early in the third: Jackson LaCombe's wrist shot from the slot (19:34, P3).
The danger ladder
ANA went 1-for-23 from medium danger on 2.23 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.
Finishing vs expected
ANA finished -0.7 against expected, WPG -1.3 — C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 1.7 goals above expected.
Shot diet
Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 2-for-19, WPG 0-for-11. ANA scored 2 of theirs off the rush.
- L. Dostal (ANA) stopped 1.3 goals above expected.
- ANA had the higher quality looks — 0.077 xG/shot vs 0.057.
- WPG couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
- ANA was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/4 on HD chances (50%).
- ANA was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 32 rush chances.
- L. Dostal was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
- C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 1.7 goals above expected — stole the show.