ANA
Anaheim Ducks
Rated #21 of 32 by xG-Elo in 2026-27
2026-27 regular season
- Record
- 5 wins, 7 regulation losses, 1 overtime losses
- Points
- 11
- Points rank
- #25 of 32
- Goal diff
- −7
The model’s read · 2026-27
Rated in line with the standings
- #26 of 32In points
- #21 of 32By xG-Elo
How the rating works — it is built from expected-goal margin, not from results
xG-Elo moves game by game with the model’s expected-goals margin, never with the score or the standings, which is why it can disagree with a club’s points. That disagreement is the sentence above. Under 7 spots apart the two are read as in line: a display rule for the wording, not a test of whether a gap is real.
This club’s rating is 1487. Every club starts from 1500 and is pulled back toward it between seasons, so above 1500 is stronger than an average team and below it weaker.
2026-27 · 13 games · goals
Goal margin: expected and actual
The rating and the standings roughly agree about the Anaheim Ducks, so there is little gap to explain.
Expected goal margin−7.9 · #27 of 32
Actual goal margin, same attempts−7 · #24 of 32
Gap +0.9 goals, actual minus expected
- Scoring, against the model
- +1.2More goals than its chances were worth
- Goals allowed, against the model
- +0.3More than its opponents’ chances were worth
Compare with every club — where its two margins sit among the league’s
Expected goal margin−7.9 · #27 of 32
Actual goal margin, same attempts−7 · #24 of 32
- Expected, from chance quality
- Actual
- Another club
| # | Club | Expected | Actual | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CAR | +21.6 | +21 | −0.7 |
| 2 | MIN | +18.1 | +12 | −6.0 |
| 3 | NJD | +13.8 | +5 | −8.8 |
| 4 | UTA | +13.7 | +5 | −8.7 |
| 5 | VGK | +13.3 | +10 | −3.4 |
| 6 | TBL | +9.8 | +6 | −3.8 |
| 7 | DET | +6.1 | −1 | −7.1 |
| 8 | COL | +5.1 | +13 | +7.9 |
| 9 | EDM | +4.3 | +13 | +8.7 |
| 10 | FLA | +3.9 | +2 | −1.9 |
| 11 | DAL | +3.6 | +5 | +1.4 |
| 12 | NYR | +2.3 | +2 | −0.3 |
| 13 | BUF | +1.6 | −6 | −7.6 |
| 14 | STL | +1.5 | +2 | +0.5 |
| 15 | MTL | +0.5 | +3 | +2.5 |
| 16 | WSH | +0.3 | +6 | +5.7 |
| 17 | BOS | 0.0 | +18 | +18.0 |
| 18 | OTT | −0.9 | −2 | −1.1 |
| 19 | LAK | −1.8 | −8 | −6.2 |
| 20 | NSH | −2.7 | −4 | −1.3 |
| 21 | PIT | −3.0 | −1 | +2.0 |
| 22 | NYI | −3.5 | +5 | +8.6 |
| 23 | CGY | −4.8 | −17 | −12.2 |
| 24 | TOR | −5.2 | +7 | +12.2 |
| 25 | WPG | −6.3 | −10 | −3.7 |
| 26 | CBJ | −6.8 | −9 | −2.2 |
| 27 | ANA | −7.9 | −7 | +0.9 |
| 28 | SEA | −8.4 | +2 | +10.4 |
| 29 | CHI | −13.6 | −21 | −7.4 |
| 30 | SJS | −15.8 | −7 | +8.8 |
| 31 | PHI | −16.2 | −21 | −4.8 |
| 32 | VAN | −22.5 | −23 | −0.5 |
Every club’s expected goals and goals, for and against, are on the Teams page.
How these are counted — open-play unblocked attempts at every strength; not the standings’ goal totals
The reading in full
The rating and the standings roughly agree about the Anaheim Ducks, so there is little gap to explain; the figures above are what each ranking is built from.
The rating is built from expected goals, the chances a club makes and allows. The standings are built from results, and results from goals. These are the two ledgers side by side, over the same attempts.
Both margins count the same pucks: open-play unblocked attempts, at every strength, with a recorded location. The actual margin is the goals on those attempts, so it leaves out penalty-shot goals and each shootout winner’s extra goal, which the standings count.
Raw, the Anaheim Ducks scored 1.2 more goals than their chances were worth and allowed 0.3 more than their opponents’ chances were worth so far in 2026-27. The scoring and allowed bars are these raw figures, measured against the model alone: the model’s league-wide level for the season being played is read once, after the season, so no average club is measured until then, and the league’s own level stays in each club’s figure. Goals allowed beyond the chances is goaltending, and whatever else the model does not see.
| Ledger | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals | 41.8 | 49.7 |
| Goals on those attempts | 43 | 50 |
- Rating entering the season
- 1506 · #13 of 32
- Rating entering its latest game
- 1487 · #21 of 32
The rating carries each club into a season from the last one, pulled back toward 1500, and then moves after every game by how far that game’s expected-goal margin beat or missed what the two clubs’ ratings predicted, home ice included. Its latest figure is the rating the club took into its most recent game.
What it cannot establish
Whether scoring or keeping out goals beyond expected is skill that will last, luck that will not, or chances the model reads wrong: nothing here tells the three apart. For skaters, finishing above expected has carried only partly into the following season — does finishing persist? These figures say which ledger the standings came from, not which ranking is right.
Regular season · per game · same attempts
Season trends
- Expected
- Actual
- 2021-22: expected goal difference −0.50 per game, goal difference on the same attempts −0.46 per game, over 82 games
- 2022-23: expected goal difference −1.35 per game, goal difference on the same attempts −1.59 per game, over 82 games
- 2023-24: expected goal difference −0.84 per game, goal difference on the same attempts −1.10 per game, over 82 games
- 2024-25: expected goal difference −0.70 per game, goal difference on the same attempts −0.55 per game, over 82 games
- 2025-26: expected goal difference +0.09 per game, goal difference on the same attempts −0.28 per game, over 82 games
- 2026-27 to date: expected goal difference −0.61 per game, goal difference on the same attempts −0.54 per game, over 13 games
How it is counted — not the standings’ goal difference
Each regular season, both figures count the same open-play unblocked attempts: expected goals for minus against, and the goals scored on those attempts for minus against, each divided by games played (GP). That is not the standings’ goal difference, which also counts penalty-shot goals and each shootout winner’s extra goal. The season to date is drawn on its own, joined to nothing.
Next game
Ottawa Senators at Anaheim Ducks
Sun, Nov 1 · 8:00 PM ET
Pre-game win chance
Set Oct 31, 8:50 AM ET, before puck drop.
The model’s projection, not a betting recommendation. Its accuracy is modest (AUC 0.600, on a scale where 0.5 is a coin flip and 1.0 is perfect). That figure is measured on 2025-26, the season the rest adjustment was first seen in, so it describes that season rather than testing the model on games it had not seen.
Results · newest first
Last 10 games
Results through October 29, 2026. A game’s result is added the morning after it is played.
- Loss, 6–7vs Buffalo Sabres,Oct 29
- Overtime loss, 5–6 OTvs Vancouver Canucks,Oct 27
- Win, 5–4at Philadelphia Flyers,Oct 24
- Loss, 1–4at New Jersey Devils,Oct 22
- Loss, 2–3at New York Islanders,Oct 20
- Loss, 2–5at New York Rangers,Oct 19
- Loss, 2–4vs Boston Bruins,Oct 16
- Loss, 2–4vs Calgary Flames,Oct 13
- Win, 4–2at Calgary Flames,Oct 10
- Win, 5–1at Winnipeg Jets,Oct 9
Last game · numbered by five-on-five time together
Lines from last game
Oct 29 vs BUF (Buffalo Sabres). These are the lines that game was played with, not a projection of the next one.
Forwards
- Line 1GreerA.J. GreerGauthierCutter GauthierWasheTim Washe6:28 together at five-on-five
- Line 2KillornAlex KillornCarlssonLeo CarlssonCaulfieldJudd Caulfield5:56 together at five-on-five
- Line 3McQueenRoger McQueenVatranoFrank VatranoColangeloSam Colangelo5:53 together at five-on-five
- Line 4MalottJeff MalottGranlundMikael GranlundSenneckeBeckett Sennecke5:37 together at five-on-five
Defence
- Pair 1LuneauTristan LuneauHindsTyson Hinds10:43 together at five-on-five
- Pair 2LaCombeJackson LaCombeWarrenNoah Warren9:55 together at five-on-five
- Pair 3JensenNick JensenMitchellTravis Mitchell8:32 together at five-on-five
Power play
- PP1GranlundMikael GranlundGauthierCutter GauthierCarlssonLeo CarlssonSenneckeBeckett SenneckeLaCombeJackson LaCombe4:10 together on the power play
- PP2KillornAlex KillornCaulfieldJudd CaulfieldColangeloSam ColangeloWasheTim WasheLuneauTristan Luneau0:46 together on the power play
Penalty kill
- PK1WasheTim WasheKillornAlex KillornLaCombeJackson LaCombeJensenNick Jensen1:03 together killing a penalty
- PK2GranlundMikael GranlundCarlssonLeo CarlssonLaCombeJackson LaCombeWarrenNoah Warren0:55 together killing a penalty
Goalie
- Ville Husso53:34 played
Box score
How these lines are found — from the shift charts, numbered by time together, not a coach’s depth chart
Every shift each player took in the game is lined up against everyone else’s, using the NHL’s own shift charts. Only five-on-five time with both goalies in net counts, so power plays and penalty kills do not split a line. Line 1 is the three forwards who spent the most of that time on the ice together, line 2 the most of the rest, and so on; defence pairs the same way.
A group that never took a full shift together, about a minute, is not called a line: its players are listed as also played. A game is used only when every skater’s time in the shift chart is within 30 seconds of the box score, so a chart the NHL published incomplete is skipped rather than read.
A power-play unit is the same five skaters on the ice together while the club had five skaters to the other side’s four or three; a penalty-kill unit is four skaters together while short a man. The second unit is the best group that shares at most one player with the first, since one player often plays on both. Power-play and short-handed time follow the penalties, not an empty net: a goalie pulled for an extra attacker at even strength is still even strength.
The box score is the NHL’s own, except four figures it does not publish. Short-handed goals and faceoffs won and lost come from the play-by-play, which is used only when it reproduces the box score’s goals, power-play goals and faceoff percentages exactly; power-play and short-handed ice time come from the shift chart.
Current roster · clubs updated weekly
Roster
Per-game rates, recency-weighted over every season since 2021-22. Skaters are listed by Adj. P, points per game pulled toward the league average when the sample is small; the other rates are the recorded ones.
| Forwards | # | Adj. P | PTS | G | A | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leo Carlsson | 91 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.34 | 0.56 | 2.24 | 226 |
| Troy Terry | 19 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.30 | 0.54 | 2.49 | 371 |
| Cutter Gauthier | 61 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.41 | 0.38 | 3.37 | 183 |
| Beckett Sennecke | 45 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 2.44 | 107 |
| Mikael Granlund | 64 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.27 | 0.47 | 1.89 | 415 |
| Alex Killorn | 17 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 1.80 | 445 |
| Judd Caulfield | 28 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 1.00 | 11 |
| Ryan Poehling | 25 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.17 | 0.27 | 1.25 | 346 |
| Frank Vatrano | 77 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.23 | 0.19 | 2.27 | 393 |
| Sam Colangelo | 12 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 1.26 | 53 |
| Sean Farrell | 59 | 0.38 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 1.33 | 6 |
| A.J. Greer | 18 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 1.26 | 316 |
| Nikita Nesterenko | 13 | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 1.14 | 72 |
| Tim Washe | 42 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.90 | 66 |
| Jeff Malott | 39 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.93 | 93 |
| Nathan Gaucher | 41 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.67 | 3 |
| Roger McQueen | 95 | 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 1.25 | 8 |
| James Hamblin | 38 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.67 | 41 |
| Nikita Klepov | 40 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4 |
| Defence | # | Adj. P | PTS | G | A | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson LaCombe | 2 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.12 | 0.58 | 1.57 | 255 |
| Tristan Luneau | 67 | 0.49 | 0.50 | 0.17 | 0.33 | 1.13 | 27 |
| Noah Warren | 47 | 0.32 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.31 | 0.69 | 13 |
| Nick Jensen | 4 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.84 | 379 |
| Pavel Mintyukov | 98 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.08 | 0.20 | 1.06 | 225 |
| Corey Schueneman | 26 | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 1.11 | 35 |
| Drew Helleson | 14 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.04 | 0.17 | 0.83 | 133 |
| Ian Moore | 3 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 1.03 | 80 |
| Travis Mitchell | 34 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.56 | 17 |
| Tyson Hinds | 55 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 1.02 | 28 |
| Goalies | # | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ville Husso | 33 | .885 | 3.03 | 23.3 | 26.3 | 54:01 | 162 |
| Laurent Brossoit | 31 | .908 | 2.47 | 23.6 | 26.0 | 56:34 | 68 |
| Lukas Dostal | 1 | .889 | 3.07 | 24.7 | 27.7 | 56:50 | 198 |
| Vyacheslav Buteyets | 32 | .769 | 3.00 | 10.0 | 13.0 | 20:00 | 1 |
How these rates are built — the club is their current one, re-checked weekly; the rates span every season since 2021-22
Each player is listed under the club the NHL had them on when we last checked, and clubs are re-checked once a week: a player traded in the last few days can still appear under their previous club, while the rates beside them span every season since 2021-22, wherever they played them. Each rate is a recency-weighted per-game average, and Sample is the number of games it rests on.
Skaters are ordered by a points rate shrunk toward the league average in proportion to how little a player has played, so a one-game sample does not out-rank a career. That rate is Adj. P; PTS and the other columns are the recorded rates, and for anyone with a real sample Adj. P and PTS are nearly the same number. Save percentage is total saves over total shots, weighted, not the average of per-game save percentages, which would count a two-shot relief appearance as heavily as a forty-shot start.
2026-27 cap · 2025-26 production
Best cap efficiency
| # | Skater | Cap hit | Club control | PTS | PTS / $1M | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beckett SenneckeR | 82 | $0.95M | 2 yrsRFA | 60 | 62.9 |
| 2 | Drew HellesonD | 60 | $1.10M | 1 yrRFA | 15 | 13.6 |
| 3 | Nikita NesterenkoC | 29 | $0.84M | 1 yrUFA | 9 | 10.7 |
| 4 | Ian MooreD | 67 | $1.15M | 2 yrsRFA | 12 | 10.4 |
| 5 | Ryan PoehlingC | 75 | $3.75M | 4 yrsUFA | 36 | 9.6 |
Club control counts every season a player is signed through, extensions included, so it can describe a different contract from the cap hit beside it. A player measured against the season that earned his contract looks expensive, so recent signings sit low and entry-level deals sit high, by construction. Cap efficiency across the league.