Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater

Breakdown · COL at LAK

Avalanche pull away from the Kings

FinalTue, Oct 7

COLColorado Avalanche4 LAKLos Angeles Kings1

The verdict · stolen

The Avalanche stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.04–3.02 and won anyway.

COL 4 · LAK 1

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 1:44 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Colorado stole this game. Los Angeles controlled 60% of expected goals and still lost 4–1, an outcome that xG models weren't built to explain.

The Kings held a 52% share of shot attempts (25–23 on goal) and a 4–3 advantage in high-danger chances. Expected goals told their story cleanly: LAK 3.02, COL 2.04. By every measure of territory and quality, Los Angeles was the better team.

Except on the scoreboard.

S. Wedgewood (COL) saved 2.02 goals above expected on 24–25 shots. D. Kuemper (LAK) surrendered 1.96 goals more than his xG baseline on 19–23. The Colorado net-minder stopped what he had to; the Los Angeles net-minder couldn't.

Colorado was lethal off the rush, converting 2 goals on 21 chances. Kevin Fiala's wrist shot from the high slot proved the turning point. A. Lehkonen (1G, 1A in 23:29) and M. Necas (2G in 21:12) piled on. C. Makar (2A in 23:07) engineered it from the blue line.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 7

COL

LAK

Avalanche pull away from the Kings

Chances 2.0 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Kings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

COL

2.04

LAK

3.02

40% of the chances60%

The board read COL 4, LAK 1. The chances read COL 2.0, LAK 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

COL

+2.0

goals above expected

COL2.04 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK3.02 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Avalanche scored 2.0 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P2 00:48COLM. Necas1–0
P2 07:00COLS. Malinski2–0
P2 14:42COLA. Lehkonen3–0
P3 10:43COLM. NecasPP4–0
P3 15:06LAKK. FialaPP4–1

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

COL

33 shots

Final

75 shots

LAK

42 shots

COL LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

COLLAK

1 / 3

0.60 xG

High danger

0 / 4

0.91 xG

2 / 8

0.87 xG

Medium

0 / 13

1.44 xG

1 / 38

0.57 xG

Low

1 / 49

0.67 xG

The Kings went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

S. Wedgewood

+2.0

COL · 24/25

D. Kuemper

−2.0

LAK · 19/23

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Avalanche pull away from the Kings

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown

backcheckreport.com

01 / 08 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 7–6no goals

2ndshots 11–5

00:48COLM. Necas(N. MacKinnon, A. Lehkonen)1–0
07:00COLS. Malinski2–0
14:42COLA. Lehkonen(C. Makar, N. MacKinnon)3–0

3rdshots 5–14

10:43COLM. Necaspower play(C. Makar, B. Nelson)4–0
15:06LAKK. Fialapower play(A. Kempe, A. Kopitar)4–1

score reads COL–LAK

Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.04

COL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.067

COL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

42.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.04Expected goals3.02

LAK 60% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal25

3High-danger chances4

49All attempts (Corsi)66

Adjusted for score: COL 38% · LAK 62%

Faceoffs · LAK won56%off44%neu62%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

COL1 / 3 · 0.60 xG

LAK0 / 4 · 0.91 xG

Medium dangermid-range

COL2 / 8 · 0.87 xG

LAK0 / 13 · 1.44 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

COL1 / 38 · 0.57 xG

LAK1 / 49 · 0.67 xG

LAK went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.44 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

COL

4 G · 2.04 xG · +2.0

LAK

1 G · 3.02 xG · -2.0

012345

COL finished +2.0 against expected, LAK -2.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

COL

WRIST1/17

SLAP0/2

SNAP3/8

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/1

POKE0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/16

LAK

WRIST1/21

SLAP0/10

SNAP0/3

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/1

POKE0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/24

COL

LAK

Off the rush

2 G on 21

1.52 xG

1 G on 24

1.99 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.21 xG

0 G on 2

0.48 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 1-for-17, LAK 1-for-21. COL scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types

New to these numbers?

Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

xG: Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
HD: High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
Corsi: Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
Adj.: Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
GSAx: Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
PDO: Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.

Shot by shot

In the net

Graded on goals saved above expected

S. Wedgewood

COL · 24/25 · .960

+2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.9+0.9

Medium0/131.4+1.4

Low1/490.7-0.3

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

D. Kuemper

LAK · 19/23 · .826

-2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.6-0.4

Medium2/80.9-1.1

Low1/380.6-0.4

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

COL

33 shots

Final

75 shots

LAK

42 shots

COL LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — COL left, LAK right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first

Three stars · computed, not voted

A. Lehkonen

#62 · L · —

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:29 on ice · +2

C. Makar

#8 · D · —

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:07 on ice · +1

M. Necas

#88 · C · —

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 21:12 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 7

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 21, 11:59 PMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The model projects a 53% Colorado win probability with an expected final of 3.3–3.1 Avalanche. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find in a single game.

Colorado's underlying advantage is structural. At 5v5, the Avalanche own 56.6% xG and 56.4% Corsi, both marks that correlate with sustained wins. The Kings sit at 51.4% xG and 52.1% Corsi—good enough that the gap feels narrow in one night.

One caveat narrows the edge: Colorado's PDO is 1.021, running hot enough to expect some regression. Los Angeles sits at 1.001, closer to the statistical mean. Variance cuts both ways in a single game.

Artturi Lehkonen is the Avalanche's engine. At 1.11 xG/60 with 18 goals, 22 assists, and six high-danger goals, he's Colorado's most dangerous outlet. His 14.9% shooting rate shows efficiency—he's not padding his line with junk. The Kings' best path to victory hinges on neutralizing him early. Ross Colton supports at 1.10 xG/60, 7 goals, 15 assists, and 4.9% shooting, the kind of depth Colorado leans on.

For Los Angeles, Alex Laferriere is the offensive anchor. At 0.87 xG/60 with 16 goals and 18 assists, he's their most consistent volume creator. Just two high-danger goals is thin, but at 9.9% shooting he's converting what matters. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 4 assists) has been playmaking without scoring; a breakthrough game is a few bounces away.

Colorado should target Laferriere defensively—not just for shutdown value but because limiting his looks limits Los Angeles's ceiling. Conversely, the Kings must make Lehkonen uncomfortable from the opening shift. Watch Nazem Kadri's coverage for Colorado and Adrian Kempe's gap control for the Kings; both are structural weak points.

The data favors Colorado, but 53% is not dominance. This is a true toss-up.

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 53%

53%

COL

Model favorite

53%

47%

COL50LAK

COL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score COL 3.3–3.1 LAK; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates

Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG

COL← edge

edge →LAK

56.6%51.4%

56.4%52.1%

3.593.10

2.762.93

3.632.68

2.402.90

1.0211.001

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 1.001) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

COL

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

LAK

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.021

COL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.001

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALLAK

Shutdown Assignment: Kings

Key matchup: Neutralize Artturi Lehkonen (18G, 1.11 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

TACTICALCOL

Shutdown Assignment: Avalanche

Key matchup: Neutralize Alex Laferriere (16G, 0.87 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

STRENGTHCOL

Artturi Lehkonen drives the Avalanche offense

Artturi Lehkonen: 18G 22A, 1.11 xG/60, 6 high-danger goals.

WARNINGCOL

Exploitable minutes: Nazem Kadri

Nazem Kadri is on ice for 2.70 xGA/60 and 55 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Nazem Kadri's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 56.6% 5v5 xG vs 51.4%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 56.4% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 56.6% 5v5 xG vs 51.4%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 56.4% — expect territorial tilt.
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

COL

Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A

1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh

Ross Colton7G 15A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh

LAK

Alex Laferriere16G 18A

0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh

Jared Wright0G 4A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page