Anaheim Ducks vs. Vegas Golden Knights Game 2 Prediction: Expected Goals Reveal the Edge
Updated July 9, 2026
The scoreboard said 3-1 Vegas, but the underlying numbers told a different story. The Golden Knights generated 3.32 expected goals against the Ducks' 3.08 — a coin-flip in terms of quality. The margin was not performance, it was finishing. Anaheim generated 34 shots on goal against just 22 for Vegas. The Ducks went 0-for-4 on the power play while converting nothing despite their biggest weapon — that 50% conversion rate from Round 1 — still being intact as a system. Vegas scored all 3 of their even-strength goals and did not convert either of their 2 power play chances either. In short, this was a game where the finishing percentage divergence was stark: Vegas converted 3 of 22 shots at even strength, Anaheim managed 1 of 29. That is not repeatable in either direction. With both goaltenders leaving chances on the table, the market pricing a total at 6 appears to undervalue the combined offensive capacity of these rosters, particularly given how the shot attempt battle actually played out.
On Wednesday night, Game 1 between Montreal and Buffalo gets underway, and we’re expecting plenty of goals in that matchup as well.
Anaheim came into this series having just knocked off Edmonton in 6 games as a 7-seed, reaching the second round for the first time since 2016-17. Vegas, meanwhile, arrived fresh off winning the Pacific Division under new coach John Tortorella, who has gone 11-3 with a plus-22 goal differential since taking over the bench. The first meeting of these franchises in playoff history immediately raised a structural question: can Anaheim's high-event offense pry open Vegas's far more disciplined defensive system?
Vegas won 3-1 on Monday, but the margin was thinner than the score suggests. Anaheim controlled shot volume with 34 to Vegas's 22, yet finished at just 2.9% at even strength, an extreme low. Vegas scored all 3 even-strength goals on just 18 even-strength shots. Brett Howden scored the go-ahead goal late for Vegas, and an empty-netter sealed it. The final score appeared much more convincing than the underlying play, with expected goals nearly even across the 60 minutes. Anaheim's power play, its series-defining weapon from Round 1, went 0-for-4. That suppression is the single clearest factor Vegas got right — and the one Anaheim will look to crack in Game 2.
Ducks captain Radko Gudas remains day-to-day with a lower-body injury and his absence limits Anaheim's size and sandpaper on the blueline. For Vegas, William Karlsson returned in Game 1 after a long absence this season. Tactically, expect Quenneville's group to push hard for power play opportunities after going 0-for-4 in Game 1. Vegas will look to maintain the disciplined structure that neutralized Anaheim's top unit.
Anaheim enters Game 2 having closed their first-round series in style — a 5-2 blowout of Edmonton in Game 6 after dropping Game 5 decisively. The Ducks have shown the ability to bounce back sharply within a series, which is relevant after a flat performance in the shooting percentage column in Game 1. Vegas has won 7 of their last 8 postseason games and has closed opponents out with increasing confidence under Tortorella. The Knights' third-period comeback ability — they had 10 third-period comeback wins in the regular season, tied for second in the NHL — remains a live concern for Anaheim if they let Vegas hang around late.
Both starters are expected to return. Lukas Dostal started all 6 games against Edmonton, posting a 3.87 GAA and .874 save percentage, though he was sharp in the series-clinching win. His expected goals allowed of 3.08 actually outpaced his raw numbers, suggesting some bad puck luck. Carter Hart is the more established playoff option for Vegas, posting a .898 save percentage in Round 1, but he has been inconsistent. Hart alternated between excellent and poor performances against Utah, capping the series by allowing just 1 goal on 23 shots in Game 6. Neither goaltender inspires confidence as a save-percentage anchor, which is central to the over argument.
Leo Carlsson averaged 4.6 shots on goal and 6.4 attempts through 7 playoff games, clearing 2.5 shots in 6 of them. In Game 1, Vegas allowed 7 attempts, 5 chances, and 4 shots on goal during his 5-on-5 minutes — and lost the shot attempt battle 19-7 in those minutes. That dominance did not translate to goals, but it is repeatable. Troy Terry, who registered 5 points in 3 regular-season games against Vegas, recorded 4 shots in Game 1 without getting rewarded. On the Vegas side, Jack Eichel led the team with 63.6% faceoff rate and generated consistent zone time, while Mitch Marner has brought reliable point production since arriving via trade. Brett Howden emerged as a late-series clutch performer against Utah and backed that up with the winning goal in Game 1.
Metric | ANA | VGK | Betting Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
Last Game 5-on-5 | 29 even-strength shots, 1 goal | 18 even-strength shots, 3 goals | Finishing variance — likely to regress |
Series Chance Quality | 3.08 xGF in Game 1 | 3.32 xGF in Game 1 | Near-even |
Special Teams | 0-for-4 on PP; 4 chances generated | 0-for-2 on PP; strong PK in Round 1 | Vegas PK edge; Ducks PP due for regression |
Goaltending | Dostal — .874 SVP in playoffs, inconsistent | Hart — .898 SVP in Round 1, volatile | Both leaky |
Matchup Edge | Carlsson dominating 5-on-5 shifts | Eichel controlling faceoffs and structure | Contested |
Regular Season Context | Anaheim 3-0 vs Vegas; all 4-3 finishes | Ducks outscored them in all 3 games | Supports competitive, higher-scoring series |
The expected game script in Game 2 looks like more of the same territorial battle, but with regression pulling the finishing numbers back toward the mean. Anaheim is due for more power play looks to convert and Carlsson's line should continue generating high volumes. Vegas's structure remains the equalizer, but their own shooting efficiency from Game 1 is unlikely to repeat at the same rate. A tighter, higher-scoring game is the most probable outcome.
Vegas is a -159 moneyline favorite in Game 2, with Anaheim at +134. The implied probability on Vegas sits at roughly 61%, which is broadly consistent with multiple projection models placing them in the 60-62% range for individual games in this series. There is no meaningful edge on the moneyline — the market is pricing Vegas correctly given their home ice and structural advantages. The more interesting market is the total. Game 1 finished 3-1 despite nearly equal xG from both teams and 56 combined shots. Both goalies have been struggling to stop low-quality shots, and Anaheim's power play — statistically elite across the postseason — has a mathematical debt to pay after going 0-for-4. With the total set at 6, the market may be anchoring to the low-scoring Game 1 result rather than the underlying production levels that suggest both offenses can find more.
Market | Odds |
|---|---|
Moneyline — Vegas | -159 |
Moneyline — Anaheim | +134 |
Total | Over 6 -120 / Under 6 +100 |
Puckline — Anaheim +1.5 | Approximately -200 based on series lines |
Vegas is the right side on the moneyline and the market has them correctly priced. The bet with actual value lives on the total. Game 1's 3-1 final masked a game that produced 56 shots, nearly identical xG for both teams, and 6 combined power play opportunities that resulted in 0 goals. That confluence of empty-handed special teams and low-percentage finishing is not a system result — it is noise layered on top of a genuinely competitive territorial game. Anaheim's offense is too dangerous and Dostal too inconsistent to keep this under 6 a second consecutive night. Vegas's own offense, anchored by Eichel and a deep forward group that averaged 3.83 goals per game over the final 3 games against Utah, is more than capable of contributing to the over even if Carlsson and the Ducks top line find their finishing touch.
Final Score Prediction: Vegas Golden Knights 4, Anaheim Ducks 3
Affiliate DisclosureATS.io uses affiliate links. If you sign up through a link on this page, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. Rankings are based on hands-on testing and published criteria, and affiliate relationships do not determine placement.
