Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
← Sat, Oct 11 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at WPG

Jets hold off the Kings

FinalSat, Oct 11
LAKLos Angeles Kings2WPGWinnipeg Jets3
The verdict · coin flip

The Jets won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

LAK 2 · WPG 3
◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:21 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

Lead with the metric that most disagrees with scoreboard: WPG won 3-2, but expected goals were 3.66-3.65—a tie. The game's result wasn't guaranteed by play quality.

Why WPG won anyway: Hellebuyck saved 1.65 goals above expected; Kuemper saved 0.66 above expected. Goaltending made the difference.

The shot and chance dynamics: WPG held 46% of shot attempts (27 on goal to LAK's 32), a deficit that usually costs teams a win. But both offenses bungled high-danger chances: WPG went 0/5, LAK went 0/6. With each goalie at 100% on HD shots, the scoring came from lower-danger areas—and Hellebuyck was sharper there: 0.938 SV% to Kuemper's 0.889.

Scheifele's moment: A tip from the slot at 11:47 of the third proved decisive—a piece of puck luck that neither shot share nor xG foresaw. LAK generated scrappy chances (3 rebound opportunities) but failed to finish. WPG capitalized on the rush: 2 goals from 31 chances.

The verdict: By underlying metrics, this was a coin flip. LAK underperformed xG by 1.65. Hellebuyck earned +1.65. The scoreline came down to hot goaltending, and WPG had the hotter goalie.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 11
LAK
2
WPG
3

Jets hold off the Kings

Chances 3.6 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Jets took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
3.65
WPG
3.66
50% of the chances50%

The board read LAK 2, WPG 3. The chances read LAK 3.6, WPG 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
−0.7
goals above expected
WPG3.66 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK3.65 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings left 1.6 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 04:48WPGA. IafalloPP0–1
  2. P2 00:50LAKM. Anderson1–1
  3. P2 09:12LAKA. Kempe2–1
  4. P2 18:57WPGM. Scheifele2–2
  5. P3 11:47WPGM. Scheifele2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
44 shots
2
Final
89 shots
WPG
45 shots
3
LAK attackWPG attack
LAK WPG Goal
44
shots · 2 in
45
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKWPG
0 / 6
1.23 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.48 xG
1 / 13
1.67 xG
Medium
2 / 14
1.44 xG
1 / 54
0.74 xG
Low
1 / 39
0.74 xG

The Kings went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
C. Hellebuyck
+1.6
WPG · 30/32
B
D. Kuemper
+0.7
LAK · 24/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Jets hold off 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 9–14
  1. 04:48WPGA. Iafallopower play(K. Connor, G. Vilardi)0–1
2ndshots 12–8
  1. 00:50LAKM. Anderson(D. Doughty, A. Kempe)1–1
  2. 09:12LAKA. Kempe(A. Kopitar, A. Kuzmenko)2–1
  3. 18:57WPGM. Scheifele(M. Barron)2–2
3rdshots 11–5
  1. 11:47WPGM. Scheifele(J. Morrissey, G. Vilardi)2–3

score reads LAK–WPG

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.66
WPG chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.7
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.024
WPG puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.65Expected goals3.66
WPG 50% of the chance quality
32Shots on goal27
6High-danger chances5
73All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: LAK 57% · WPG 43%
Faceoffs · WPG won50%off56%neu42%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK0 / 6 · 1.23 xG
WPG0 / 5 · 1.48 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK1 / 13 · 1.67 xG
WPG2 / 14 · 1.44 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK1 / 54 · 0.74 xG
WPG1 / 39 · 0.74 xG

WPG went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.48 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
2 G · 3.65 xG · -1.6
WPG
3 G · 3.66 xG · -0.7
01234

LAK finished -1.6 against expected, WPG -0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
WRIST0/22
SLAP1/10
SNAP0/3
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN1/4
POKE0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/29
WPG
WRIST1/22
SLAP0/8
SNAP0/6
BACKHAND1/5
TIP IN1/4
POKE0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/13
LAK
WPG
Off the rush
1 G on 25
2.39 xG
2 G on 31
2.37 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.47 xG
0 G on 0
0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 0-for-22, WPG 1-for-22. WPG 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
D. Kuemper
LAK · 24/27 · .889
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.5+1.5
Medium2/141.4-0.6
Low1/390.7-0.3

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

C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 30/32 · .938
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.2+1.2
Medium1/131.7+0.7
Low1/540.7-0.3

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
LAK
44 shots
2
Final
89 shots
WPG
45 shots
3
LAK attackWPG attack
LAK WPG Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, WPG 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. Kempe
#9 · R · —
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 21:41 on ice · +2
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · —
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:45 on ice · +1
G. Vilardi
#13 · C · —
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 19:20 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 11
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:35 AMEdited 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 3.1-3.1 goal game with the Jets at 50% win probability. This is the rarest matchup: predictive systems see no edge at all.

The game hinges on two shutdown assignments. Winnipeg must contain Alex Laferriere (16G 18A), who generates 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes with 2 high-danger goals this season. LA's task is neutralizing Nino Niederreiter (6G 6A), another 0.87 xG/60 producer with 3 high-danger chances. Both teams have secondary threats—Kyle Connor (25G 30A, 0.83 xG/60, 2 HD goals) gives Winnipeg depth, while Jared Wright (0G 4A, 0.83 xG/60) complements LA's attack.

What the underlying numbers reveal: LAK drives shot volume, winning the Corsi battle at 52.1% to 49.0%, and maintains an expected-goal advantage (51.4% xG% to 48.9%). Neither team's PDO (1.001 for LA, 0.998 for WPG) suggests unsustainable luck. The territorial tilt favors LA, which matters when possession correlates with scoring chances.

But possession is only half the equation. Adrian Kempe, on ice for 2.47 expected goals against per 60 minutes, has faced 43 high-danger shots against this season—a clear pressure point. Winnipeg should hunt him. The Jets face a mirror problem in Colin Miller's defense.

The real story: two elite offenses with similar scoring-chance quality but unequal shot volume. The team with the territorial advantage needs to capitalize. Expect a tight game decided by whoever converts their 0.87 xG/60 into goals first. Laferriere and Niederreiter will likely determine the outcome.

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

WPG 50%
50%
WPG
Model favorite
50%
50%
LAK50WPG

WPG by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 3.1–3.1 WPG; 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
LAK← edge
edge →WPG
51.4%48.9%
52.1%49.0%
3.102.97
2.933.10
2.682.79
2.903.12
1.0010.998

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.001 vs 0.998) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
LAK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
WPG
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.001
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
WPG PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALWPG

Shutdown Assignment: Jets

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

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

TACTICALLAK

Shutdown Assignment: Kings

Key matchup: Neutralize Nino Niederreiter (6G, 0.87 xG/60, 3 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Nino Niederreiter (6G, 0.87 xG/60, 3 HD goals)

WARNINGLAK

Exploitable minutes: Adrian Kempe

Adrian Kempe is on ice for 2.47 xGA/60 and 43 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Adrian Kempe's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGWPG

Exploitable minutes: Colin Miller

Colin Miller is on ice for 3.07 xGA/60 and 15 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Colin Miller's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.1% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.1% — expect territorial tilt.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
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
WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page