Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater

Breakdown · LAK at STL

Kings edge the Blues in overtime

Final / OTTue, Oct 21

LAKLos Angeles Kings2 STLSt. Louis Blues1

The verdict · stolen

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.06–2.45 and won anyway.

LAK 2 · STL 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:35 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

The Kings' overtime winner masked an uncomfortable truth: the Blues generated better underlying chances but couldn't convert them. St. Louis finished with 2.45 expected goals to Los Angeles's 2.06, a slight edge to the Blues, yet lost 2-1—a mismatch rooted in execution rather than opportunity.

The Blues controlled territory with 39% of shot attempts (18–28), but volume without conversion is a loss. L.A. was lethal in high-value situations: high-danger chances split 4–1 in their favor, and they scored twice on 21 rush attempts. St. Louis created three rebound opportunities and converted none. D. Kuemper's 0.944 save percentage, +1.45 goals above expected, amplified the gap. J. Binnington faced a modest 0.929 SV%, but the problem wasn't the goaltending—it was the execution before the shot.

Adrian Kempe's overtime winner came at 01:50 from the top of the circles, capping L.A.'s rush dominance. Kempe registered 1G and 1A in 18:33. J. Faulk answered for St. Louis with 1G, and R. Thomas added 1A, but neither was enough to overcome the efficiency gap.

St. Louis had the better underlying numbers (2.45 xG), yet hockey is built on translation rates. The Kings proved more ruthless when it mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Oct 21

LAK

STL

Kings edge the Blues in overtime

Chances 2.1 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blues deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

2.06

STL

2.45

46% of the chances54%

The board read LAK 2, STL 1. The chances read LAK 2.1, STL 2.5.

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

Luck check

LAK

−0.1

goals above expected

LAK2.06 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

STL2.45 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 01:47LAKA. Laferriere1–0
P3 02:18STLJ. FaulkPP1–1
OT 01:50LAKA. KempePP2–1

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

Where the shots came from

LAK

38 shots

Final

69 shots

STL

31 shots

LAK STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKSTL

0 / 1

0.33 xG

High danger

0 / 4

1.09 xG

2 / 10

1.11 xG

Medium

1 / 8

0.92 xG

0 / 36

0.62 xG

Low

0 / 34

0.44 xG

The Blues went 0 for 4 from the slot.

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

In the net

B+

D. Kuemper

+1.4

LAK · 17/18

J. Binnington

+0.1

STL · 26/28

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kings edge the Blues in overtime

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 10–5no goals

2ndshots 9–3

01:47LAKA. Laferriere(A. Kempe)1–0

3rdshots 7–10

02:18STLJ. Faulkpower play(R. Thomas, J. Kyrou)1–1

OTshots 2–0

01:50LAKA. Kempepower play(A. Kuzmenko, K. Fiala)2–1

score reads LAK–STL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.06

LAK chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.021

LAK puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.06Expected goals2.45

STL 54% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal18

1High-danger chances4

47All attempts (Corsi)46

Adjusted for score: LAK 50% · STL 51%

Faceoffs · STL won42%off68%neu47%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK0 / 1 · 0.33 xG

STL0 / 4 · 1.09 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK2 / 10 · 1.11 xG

STL1 / 8 · 0.92 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK0 / 36 · 0.62 xG

STL0 / 34 · 0.44 xG

STL went 0-for-4 from high danger on 1.09 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

2 G · 2.06 xG · -0.1

STL

1 G · 2.45 xG · -1.4

0123

LAK finished -0.1 against expected, STL -1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

WRIST0/17

SLAP1/8

TIP IN0/4

SNAP0/4

BACKHAND1/3

WRAP AROUND0/2

BAT0/0

OTHER0/9

STL

WRIST1/19

SLAP0/1

TIP IN0/4

SNAP0/3

BACKHAND0/3

WRAP AROUND0/0

BAT0/1

OTHER0/15

LAK

STL

Off the rush

2 G on 21

1.77 xG

1 G on 18

1.40 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.02 xG

0 G on 3

0.49 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 0-for-17, STL 1-for-19. LAK 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 · 17/18 · .944

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/41.1+1.1

Medium1/80.9-0.1

Low0/340.4+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

J. Binnington

STL · 26/28 · .929

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.3+0.3

Medium2/101.1-0.9

Low0/360.6+0.6

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

69 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

38 shots

Final

69 shots

STL

31 shots

LAK STL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, STL 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 · LAK

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:33 on ice · +1

J. Faulk

#72 · D · STL

1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 23:37 on ice · -1

R. Thomas

#18 · C · STL

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:02 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 21

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:33 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 2.4–2.4 game with the Kings at 50% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The Kings own the underlying play: 52.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi at five-on-five, which points to territorial dominance. St. Louis counters at 49.0% xG and 48.0% Corsi, a modest disadvantage. Neither gap is wide enough to predict a winner.

The disconnect is recent results. Los Angeles sits -8 in goal differential over their last 10, a sign their edge hasn't converted. Both teams show identical puck luck: LAK's PDO is 1.002, STL's 1.000. Special teams won't swing this either—both teams show 0% hard-chance and 0% rebound-goal rates. This matchup is a coin flip because the underlying play is a coin flip.

Alex Laferriere (16G, 18A, 0.87 xG/60, 9.9% shooting, 2 hard-chance goals) carries the Kings' offensive load. Jared Wright (0G, 4A, 0.83 xG/60) supports him. For St. Louis, Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 22A, 0.86 xG/60, 11.9% shooting, 2 hard-chance goals) mirrors Laferriere's role, while Dylan Holloway (13G, 24A, 0.82 xG/60, 10.8% shooting, 1 hard-chance goal) deepens the attack.

Defensively, Los Angeles will trust Adrian Kempe as a key matchup piece—a known liability. St. Louis will depend on everyone else to absorb the Kings' territorial pressure. The edge goes to whichever team can impose its will at five-on-five—a tossup when the underlying numbers suggest neither has one.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 51%

51%

LAK

Model favorite

51%

49%

LAK50STL

LAK by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.4–2.4 STL; 19% 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 →STL

52.0%49.0%

52.0%48.0%

2.422.34

2.202.40

1.852.00

1.712.12

1.0021.000

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.000) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

LAK

3-5-2

-8 GD · 2d rest

STL

5-5-0

+0 GD · 3d rest

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.000

STL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Kings are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

LAK

Expected in goal

A. Forsberg

2 days rest.900 last start

Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

STL

Expected in goal

J. Binnington

3 days rest.947 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

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

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A

0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh

Dylan Holloway13G 24A

0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page