Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Sun, Oct 26 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at CHI

Kings run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSun, Oct 26
LAKLos Angeles Kings3CHIChicago Blackhawks1
The verdict · earned

The Kings earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

LAK 3 · CHI 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:22 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

Los Angeles won 3-1, but xG numbers reveal broader dominance. The Kings controlled 63% of expected goals at 5v5, with shots averaging 0.069 xG each versus Chicago's 0.045—a gap that transformed a close shot total into a rout.

Chicago underperformed its own chances badly. The Blackhawks recorded 1.97 expected goals and scored one, missing 0.97 goals. A. Soderblom stopped 1.3 goals above expected, yet the team's low-danger profile offered no room for error. Los Angeles needed merely average goaltending; A. Forsberg's 0.957 save percentage ran 0.97 ahead of expected against superior shot selection.

The Kings proved most dangerous in transition: three goals from 19 rush chances, a conversion rate that justifies the decisive margin. High-danger chances finished 4–1 in LA's favor. Joel Armia's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 18:52) exemplified LA's interior play.

Chicago generated four rebound opportunities without converting, evidence of net-front activity that lacked execution. C. Bedard recorded 1G in 22:41. J. Edmundson and A. Kempe collected assists for LA.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 26
LAK
3
CHI
1

Kings run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.3 – 2.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
3.29
CHI
1.97
63% of the chances37%

The board read LAK 3, CHI 1. The chances read LAK 3.3, CHI 2.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−0.3
goals above expected
LAK3.29 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI1.97 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
  1. P1 07:04CHIC. Bedard0–1
  2. P2 03:30LAKA. Laferriere1–1
  3. P2 04:54LAKK. Fiala2–1
  4. P3 18:52LAKJ. ArmiaEN3–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
37 shots
3
Final
70 shots
CHI
33 shots
1
LAK attackCHI attack
LAK CHI Goal
37
shots · 3 in
33
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKCHI
1 / 4
1.73 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.23 xG
2 / 10
1.02 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.27 xG
0 / 34
0.55 xG
Low
0 / 32
0.46 xG

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

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Soderblom
+1.3
CHI · 19/21
B+
A. Forsberg
+1.0
LAK · 22/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings run the Blackhawks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 6–11
  1. 07:04CHIC. Bedard(I. Mikheyev)0–1
2ndshots 8–4
  1. 03:30LAKA. Laferriere(C. Perry, P. Danault)1–1
  2. 04:54LAKK. Fiala(B. Clarke)2–1
3rdshots 8–8
  1. 18:52LAKJ. Armiaempty net(A. Kempe, J. Edmundson)3–1

score reads LAK–CHI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.29
LAK chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.040
LAK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
52.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.29Expected goals1.97
LAK 63% of the chance quality
22Shots on goal23
4High-danger chances1
48All attempts (Corsi)44
Adjusted for score: LAK 51% · CHI 49%
Faceoffs · CHI won65%off50%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK1 / 4 · 1.73 xG
CHI0 / 1 · 0.23 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK2 / 10 · 1.02 xG
CHI1 / 11 · 1.27 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK0 / 34 · 0.55 xG
CHI0 / 32 · 0.46 xG

LAK went 2-for-10 from medium danger on 1.02 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
3 G · 3.29 xG · -0.3
CHI
1 G · 1.97 xG · -1.0
01234

LAK finished -0.3 against expected, CHI -1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
WRIST3/26
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/0
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/0
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/11
CHI
WRIST0/17
SLAP0/6
TIP IN1/5
BACKHAND0/0
SNAP0/3
POKE0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/11
LAK
CHI
Off the rush
3 G on 19
2.45 xG
1 G on 17
1.13 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.27 xG
0 G on 4
0.52 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 3-for-26, CHI 0-for-17. LAK scored 3 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
A. Forsberg
LAK · 22/23 · .957
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium1/111.3+0.3
Low0/320.5+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

A. Soderblom
CHI · 19/21 · .905
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.7+0.7
Medium2/101.0-1.0
Low0/340.6+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

70 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
LAK
37 shots
3
Final
70 shots
CHI
33 shots
1
LAK attackCHI attack
LAK CHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, CHI 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
C. Bedard
#98 · C · CHI
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 22:41 on ice · -1
J. Edmundson
#6 · D · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:16 on ice · +2
A. Kempe
#9 · R · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:36 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Oct 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:20 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 2.7–2.3 Kings win, assigning Los Angeles 57% win probability. That lean sits on the underlying play, not luck.

The Kings dominate the territorial battle at 52.0% 5v5 Corsi—they control the puck, generate chances, and force Chicago to defend. That edge shows up in xG%, where Los Angeles posts 52.0% to Chicago's 42.0%, a gap that indicates the Kings should outshoot their opponents decisively. Both teams track close to neutral on PDO (Los Angeles at 1.002, Chicago at 0.996), so there's no goaltending variance masking the underlying advantage.

Context matters: the Kings sit -5 in goal differential over their last 10. That's a warning flag. The Kings have played better than their results, which cuts two ways—either they're due for positive regression, or the metrics aren't translating to wins because execution or goaltending is lagging.

Watch Alex Laferriere for Los Angeles. He generates 0.87 xG/60 while posting 16G 18A with a 9.9% shooting percentage and 2 high-danger goals, marking a gap between creation and output. Jared Wright operates at a similar creation rate of 0.83 xG/60, though his 0G 4A and 0.0% shooting rate mark him as a pure playmaker; Los Angeles's scoring will depend on others capitalizing.

Chicago's offense runs through Tyler Bertuzzi and Connor Bedard. Bertuzzi's 18.0% shooting percentage—well above league norms—inflates his goal total of 20G; his underlying 0.85 xG/60 is the more reliable signal. Bedard sits at 0.82 xG/60 with 17G 27A, 5 high-danger goals, and 11.8% shooting. His assist total (27) marks him as an offensive hub, but the gap between his xG/60 and goal production leaves room for regression.

The Kings' model edge isn't massive—10 points in xG% and 6 in Corsi% are real but not decisive. Los Angeles will need to translate territorial dominance into scoring before Chicago's correction tightens the margin.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 57%
57%
LAK
Model favorite
57%
43%
LAK50CHI

LAK by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.7–2.3 CHI; 18% 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 →CHI
52.0%42.0%
52.0%46.0%
2.422.17
2.202.94
1.851.84
1.712.41
1.0020.996

LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.996) says LAK 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 · 2d rest
CHI
4-4-2
+0 GD · 3d rest
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.996
CHI 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 42.0%.
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Kings are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
LAK
Expected in goal
D. Kuemper
2 days rest.935 last start
Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

CHI
Expected in goal
S. Knight
3 days rest.935 last start
Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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
CHI
Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
Connor Bedard17G 27A
0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page