Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Thu, Oct 23 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at DAL

Kings steal one from the Stars against the run of play

Final / OTThu, Oct 23
LAKLos Angeles Kings3DALDallas Stars2
The verdict · stolen

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.49–3.94 and won anyway.

LAK 3 · DAL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:54 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 Los Angeles Kings won 3–2 in overtime. Dallas controlled the game by every underlying metric and lost anyway.

The Stars owned 61% of expected goals at 5v5, outshooting the Kings 31–25 and generating 9 high-danger chances to 4. The xG finished 3.94–2.49—a split that said Dallas was better. D. Kuemper disagreed. The Kings' goaltender saved 1.94 goals above expectation while J. Oettinger gave back 0.51. Dallas generated the sharper looks—0.068 xG per shot versus 0.052—and squandered them.

The Stars' power play was dominant: 2 goals on 11 shots (1.07 xG). The Kings' rush attack was lethal: 2 goals from 21 chances. Dallas crashed the net effectively, generating 5 rebound opportunities but converting only 1. Adrian Kempe's snap shot from the high slot at 00:37 of overtime wrote the ending.

The Stars underperformed their xG by 1.94 goals. That margin separates a convincing Dallas victory from a Kings heist.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 23
LAK
3
DAL
2

Kings steal one from the Stars against the run of play

Chances 2.5 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
2.49
DAL
3.94
39% of the chances61%

The board read LAK 3, DAL 2. The chances read LAK 2.5, DAL 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
+0.5
goals above expected
LAK2.49 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL3.94 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars left 1.9 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 18:48LAKC. PerryPP1–0
  2. P2 04:58DALJ. RobertsonPP1–1
  3. P2 06:27LAKC. Ceci2–1
  4. P3 02:32DALW. JohnstonPP2–2
  5. OT 00:37LAKA. Kempe3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
34 shots
3
Final
75 shots
DAL
41 shots
2
LAK attackDAL attack
LAK DAL Goal
34
shots · 3 in
41
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKDAL
0 / 4
1.08 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.31 xG
3 / 8
0.90 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.18 xG
0 / 36
0.51 xG
Low
1 / 38
0.46 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 0 of 4, DAL 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Kuemper
+1.9
LAK · 29/31
D
J. Oettinger
−0.5
DAL · 22/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings steal one from the Stars against the run of play

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 5–8
  1. 18:48LAKC. Perrypower play(K. Fiala, Q. Byfield)1–0
2ndshots 10–14
  1. 04:58DALJ. Robertsonpower play(R. Hintz, W. Johnston)1–1
  2. 06:27LAKC. Ceci(A. Kempe, A. Laferriere)2–1
3rdshots 9–8
  1. 02:32DALW. Johnstonpower play(R. Hintz, M. Rantanen)2–2
OTshots 1–1
  1. 00:37LAKA. Kempe(Q. Byfield)3–2

score reads LAK–DAL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.49
LAK chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.028
LAK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.49Expected goals3.94
DAL 61% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal31
4High-danger chances9
48All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: LAK 44% · DAL 56%
Faceoffs · DAL won46%off50%neu26%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK0 / 4 · 1.08 xG
DAL1 / 9 · 2.31 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK3 / 8 · 0.90 xG
DAL0 / 11 · 1.18 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK0 / 36 · 0.51 xG
DAL1 / 38 · 0.46 xG

LAK went 3-for-8 from medium danger on 0.90 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
3 G · 2.49 xG · +0.5
DAL
2 G · 3.94 xG · -1.9
012345

LAK finished +0.5 against expected, DAL -1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
SNAP2/25
WRIST0/4
SLAP1/5
BACKHAND0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
TIP IN0/0
OTHER0/14
DAL
SNAP2/29
WRIST0/5
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND0/4
WRAP AROUND0/1
TIP IN0/1
OTHER0/17
LAK
DAL
Off the rush
2 G on 21
1.63 xG
1 G on 26
2.58 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.26 xG
1 G on 5
1.09 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 2-for-25, DAL 2-for-29. 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 · 29/31 · .935
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/92.3+1.3
Medium0/111.2+1.2
Low1/380.5-0.5

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. Oettinger
DAL · 22/25 · .880
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.1+1.1
Medium3/80.9-2.1
Low0/360.5+0.5

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
LAK
34 shots
3
Final
75 shots
DAL
41 shots
2
LAK attackDAL attack
LAK DAL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, DAL 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
W. Johnston
#53 · C · DAL
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 24:11 on ice · -1
Q. Byfield
#55 · R · LAK
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:32 on ice · +1
R. Hintz
#24 · C · DAL
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 20:10 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 23
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:53 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 models hate this one. Los Angeles and Dallas both project to 2.4 goals at 5v5—as close to a pick'em as you'll find—giving Dallas a marginal 51% edge. What you're looking at is genuine indifference.

Recent form complicates the Kings' case. LAK sits -5 on goal differential over their last 10, a red flag until you check the underlying numbers. At 5v5, the Kings control play decisively: 52.0% Corsi, 52.0% xG%. Dallas counters with 51.0% xG% and 47.0% Corsi, a territory battle won by LA. The gap is modest but real—the Kings should be winning net shots, and recent slop suggests roster execution, not structural weakness.

Dallas runs hot, and heat cools. The Stars carry a 1.024 PDO to LAK's 1.002—a gap that favors Dallas. Regression is the house edge, not the underdog's hope.

Both goaltenders face back-to-backs. J. Oettinger and D. Kuemper could split starters, start tired, or both pull through fresh. Uncertainty here tilts the game toward chaos.

The skill gap narrows to a few key creators. Jason Robertson (0.96 xG/60, 25G 21A) remains Dallas's most lethal threat—the kind of player who punishes territorial dominance. Alex Laferriere (0.87 xG/60, 16G 18A) is LAK's closest answer: he converts at 9.9%, above league rate, and has potted two high-danger goals, proof the Kings generate premium chances. Michael Bunting (0.83 xG/60, 8G 14A at 7.6%) operates Dallas's secondary line; Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0G 4A) has the play-generating chops but not the finishing for LA—a concern if the Kings need secondary scoring.

The defensive seams matter. Adrian Kempe becomes an exposure point for Dallas; Tyler Myers faces the same scrutiny from LA's forecheck.

Corsi says LAK should win. PDO says Dallas stays lucky. Back-to-backs offer no clarity. This game is exactly what the model promises: a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

DAL 51%
51%
DAL
Model favorite
49%
51%
LAK50DAL

DAL by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.4–2.4 DAL; 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 →DAL
52.0%51.0%
52.0%47.0%
2.422.36
2.202.29
1.852.07
1.711.68
1.0021.024

LAK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
LAK
4-4-2
-5 GD · 1d rest
DAL
6-4-0
+0 GD · 1d rest
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.024
DAL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Kings are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
LAK
Expected in goal
D. Kuemper
back-to-back.944 last start
Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

DAL
Expected in goal
J. Oettinger
back-to-back.857 last start
Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page