Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
Breakdown · LAK at SJS

Kings steal one from the Sharks against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 1.76–5.66 and won anyway.

LAK 4 · SJS 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:47 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 won 4-3 despite losing the expected-goals battle 5.66–1.76. San Jose deserved better.

The Sharks controlled this game in every meaningful way. They held 74% of shot attempts (40–14 on goal). Expected goals finished at 76–24 in their favor—a gap large enough that the scoreboard was dishonest.

High-danger chances reinforced the dominance: 8–2 to San Jose. Quality per attempt told the same story—the Sharks generated 0.072 expected goals per shot; the Kings managed 0.052. A team creating better chances lost to a team that didn't.

The Kings scored where it counted. They scored 4 goals on 17 rush chances (24% conversion). San Jose scored 2 on 31 rush attempts. They crashed the net hard (5 rebound opportunities), but nothing fell.

Variance is the story here. D. Kuemper, behind a team that never should have won, saved 2.66 goals above expected (37 of 40 stops). Y. Askarov gave up 4 goals on 14 shots—2.24 above the 1.76 expected. One got heroically lucky; the other got buried by chaos.

This is what variance looks like: a Sharks team that should have won by two, walking out 4-3 losers. The Kings stole one. San Jose learned why expected goals exist.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 28
LAK
4
SJS
3

Kings steal one from the Sharks against the run of play

Chances 1.8 – 5.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sharks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
1.76
SJS
5.66
24% of the chances76%

The board read LAK 4, SJS 3. The chances read LAK 1.8, SJS 5.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
+2.2
goals above expected
LAK1.76 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
SJS5.66 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings scored 2.2 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 10:54LAKC. Perry1–0
  2. P2 03:21LAKJ. Malott2–0
  3. P2 06:43LAKD. Doughty3–0
  4. P2 15:33SJSW. Smith3–1
  5. P2 17:16SJSP. Kurashev3–2
  6. P3 04:48SJSA. Wennberg3–3
  7. P3 13:20LAKB. Clarke4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
22 shots
4
Final
76 shots
SJS
54 shots
3
LAK attackSJS attack
LAK SJS Goal
22
shots · 4 in
54
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKSJS
1 / 2
0.66 xG
High danger
2 / 8
2.66 xG
2 / 8
0.78 xG
Medium
0 / 19
2.19 xG
1 / 24
0.32 xG
Low
1 / 52
0.80 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 1 of 2, SJS 2 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Kuemper
+2.7
LAK · 37/40
F
Y. Askarov
−2.2
SJS · 10/14
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings steal one from the Sharks 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 6–7
  1. 10:54LAKC. Perry(B. Clarke, A. Laferriere)1–0
2ndshots 4–16
  1. 03:21LAKJ. Malott(C. Perry, J. Edmundson)2–0
  2. 06:43LAKD. Doughty(B. Dumoulin, A. Turcotte)3–0
  3. 15:33SJSW. Smith(M. Celebrini, T. Toffoli)3–1
  4. 17:16SJSP. Kurashev(A. Wennberg, W. Eklund)3–2
3rdshots 4–17
  1. 04:48SJSA. Wennberg(P. Kurashev, J. Skinner)3–3
  2. 13:20LAKB. Clarke(A. Kempe, J. Edmundson)4–3

score reads LAK–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
1.76
LAK chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.080
LAK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
30.1%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.76Expected goals5.66
SJS 76% of the chance quality
14Shots on goal40
2High-danger chances8
34All attempts (Corsi)79
Adjusted for score: LAK 28% · SJS 72%
Faceoffs · SJS won67%off44%neu31%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK1 / 2 · 0.66 xG
SJS2 / 8 · 2.66 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK2 / 8 · 0.78 xG
SJS0 / 19 · 2.19 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK1 / 24 · 0.32 xG
SJS1 / 52 · 0.80 xG

SJS went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.19 expected goals — 2.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
4 G · 1.76 xG · +2.2
SJS
3 G · 5.66 xG · -2.7
0123456

LAK finished +2.2 against expected, SJS -2.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
WRIST3/11
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/1
SNAP1/2
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/12
SJS
WRIST2/33
TIP IN0/8
SLAP1/6
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/25
LAK
SJS
Off the rush
4 G on 17
1.64 xG
2 G on 31
2.57 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.07 xG
0 G on 5
1.82 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 3-for-11, SJS 2-for-33. LAK scored 4 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 · 37/40 · .925
+2.7
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.7+0.7
Medium0/192.2+2.2
Low1/520.8-0.2

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

Y. Askarov
SJS · 10/14 · .714
-2.2
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.7-0.3
Medium2/80.8-1.2
Low1/240.3-0.7

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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
LAK
22 shots
4
Final
76 shots
SJS
54 shots
3
LAK attackSJS attack
LAK SJS Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, SJS 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. Wennberg
#21 · C · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:56 on ice · +2
P. Kurashev
#96 · C · SJS
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:54 on ice · +2
J. Edmundson
#6 · D · LAK
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:01 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 28
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:46 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 has the Kings at 52% win probability with an expected scoresheet of 2.5–2.4 LAK. This is pick'em territory.

Los Angeles owns the structural advantage: 52.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi shape the underlying play, while San Jose posts 48.0% xG and 47.0% Corsi. PDO splits are nearly even (LAK 1.002, SJS 0.998), suggesting luck isn't the differentiator—it's possession and efficiency. The Kings will control territory for most of the night.

But recent form complicates the narrative. Los Angeles is 4-3-3 over their last 10, generating momentum through consistency rather than explosive wins. San Jose sits -15 in goal differential over the same span—a deficit that either reflects unsustainable variance or systematic inefficiency. At this margin, the model calls it even because neither historical advantage nor recent run-rate appears decisive.

Offensively, Alex Laferriere anchors the Kings at 0.87 xG/60 with 16 goals and 18 assists. His 9.9% shooting sits at league average, meaning his 2 high-danger goals are converting at expected rates—clean looks, not chaos. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0 goals, 4 assists) creates volume but hasn't finished; the assist count signals opportunity. For San Jose, Pavol Regenda—the team's xG/60 leader at 1.10—is likely unavailable. Igor Chernyshov steps into offensive focus at 0.91 xG/60 with 6 goals and 8 assists, though his 15.0% shooting rate signals overperformance. Chernyshov also represents San Jose's defensive liability; Adrian Kempe fills that role for Los Angeles.

Both teams register 0% high-danger and 0% rebound goal rates, signaling conservative hockey where possession dominates over scrambles.

The Kings' territorial edge should manifest as shot volume and zone time. Whether they convert that into a win depends on shooting-rate sustainability—precisely the volatility a 52% projection captures.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 52%
52%
LAK
Model favorite
52%
48%
LAK50SJS

LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.4 SJS; 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 →SJS
52.0%48.0%
52.0%47.0%
2.422.33
2.202.56
1.851.99
1.712.32
1.0020.998

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.998) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
LAK
4-3-3
-4 GD · 2d rest
SJS
2-6-2
-15 GD · 2d rest
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.998
SJS 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 48.0%.
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Kings are the hotter team by points pace (4-3-3 in their last 10).
  • The Sharks are underwater at -15 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.957 last start
Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

SJS
Expected in goal
Y. Askarov
2 days rest.848 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
SJS
Pavol Regenda5G 1A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Keep going

Where to next