Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater

Breakdown · NJD at LAK

J. Markstrom stands tall as the Devils edge the Kings

FinalSat, Nov 1

NJDNew Jersey Devils4 LAKLos Angeles Kings1

The verdict · stolen

The Devils stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.01–4.26 and won anyway.

NJD 4 · LAK 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:16 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 controlled the game—59% of expected goals, 67% of shot attempts—and lost 4–1. That's the deal: New Jersey stole this one.

The Kings generated 4.26 expected goals and finished with 1. Eight high-danger chances yielded one goal. New Jersey's 3.01 xG became 4. This wasn't happenstance. This was J. Markstrom's brilliance and Los Angeles's failure to finish.

Markstrom stopped 43 of 44 shots (0.977 save percentage) and posted +3.26 goals saved above expected. D. Kuemper allowed 3 on 21. The gap was not subtle.

New Jersey's chances carried more weight. At 5v5, the Devils generated 0.065 xG per shot; the Kings managed 0.045. New Jersey was lethal on the rush—3 goals on 17 chances—and scored from low-danger areas, spots where opposing goalies are supposed to make saves. Los Angeles created 5 rebound opportunities and converted zero.

D. Mercer scored twice. L. Hughes and B. Dillon each added an assist. The Devils rode depth and a brick wall to a heist.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 1

NJD

LAK

J. Markstrom stands tall as the Devils edge the Kings

Chances 3.0 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Kings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

NJD

3.01

LAK

4.26

41% of the chances59%

The board read NJD 4, LAK 1. The chances read NJD 3.0, LAK 4.3.

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

Luck check

NJD

+1.0

goals above expected

NJD3.01 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK4.26 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Kings left 3.3 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 01:22NJDN. Hischier1–0
P2 03:12NJDB. Halonen2–0
P3 03:09NJDD. MercerSH3–0
P3 09:49LAKA. Kuzmenko3–1
P3 16:12NJDD. MercerEN4–1

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

Where the shots came from

NJD

31 shots

Final

94 shots

LAK

63 shots

NJD LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

NJDLAK

1 / 2

1.39 xG

High danger

1 / 8

1.79 xG

1 / 10

1.14 xG

Medium

0 / 15

1.49 xG

2 / 34

0.47 xG

Low

0 / 71

0.98 xG

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

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

In the net

A+

J. Markstrom

+3.3

NJD · 43/44

D. Kuemper

+0.0

LAK · 18/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

J. Markstrom stands tall as the Devils edge 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 8–14

01:22NJDN. Hischier(L. Hughes)1–0

2ndshots 11–18

03:12NJDB. Halonen(L. Glendening, D. Cholowski)2–0

3rdshots 3–12

03:09NJDD. Mercershorthanded(J. Siegenthaler)3–0
09:49LAKA. Kuzmenko(A. Kopitar, A. Laferriere)3–1
16:12NJDD. Mercerempty net(J. Markstrom, B. Dillon)4–1

score reads NJD–LAK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.01

NJD chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.076

NJD puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

32.9%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.01Expected goals4.26

LAK 59% of the chance quality

22Shots on goal44

2High-danger chances8

46All attempts (Corsi)94

Adjusted for score: NJD 28% · LAK 72%

Faceoffs · LAK won83%off50%neu43%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

NJD1 / 2 · 1.39 xG

LAK1 / 8 · 1.79 xG

Medium dangermid-range

NJD1 / 10 · 1.14 xG

LAK0 / 15 · 1.49 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

NJD2 / 34 · 0.47 xG

LAK0 / 71 · 0.98 xG

NJD went 2-for-34 from low danger on 0.47 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

NJD

4 G · 3.01 xG · +1.0

LAK

1 G · 4.26 xG · -3.3

012345

NJD finished +1.0 against expected, LAK -3.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

NJD

WRIST3/23

TIP IN1/5

SLAP0/1

SNAP0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

BACKHAND0/0

OTHER0/15

LAK

WRIST1/35

TIP IN0/11

SLAP0/8

SNAP0/6

WRAP AROUND0/1

BACKHAND0/2

OTHER0/31

NJD

LAK

Off the rush

3 G on 17

1.23 xG

1 G on 22

2.09 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 1

0.07 xG

0 G on 5

0.52 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: NJD went 3-for-23, LAK 1-for-35. NJD 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

J. Markstrom

NJD · 43/44 · .977

+3.3

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/81.8+0.8

Medium0/151.5+1.5

Low0/711.0+1.0

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

D. Kuemper

LAK · 18/21 · .857

+0.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/21.4+0.4

Medium1/101.1+0.1

Low2/340.5-1.5

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

94 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

NJD

31 shots

Final

94 shots

LAK

63 shots

NJD LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD left, LAK 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

D. Mercer

#91 · C · NJD

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:05 on ice · +2

L. Hughes

#43 · D · NJD

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 25:43 on ice · +2

B. Dillon

#5 · D · NJD

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:01 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 1

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:15 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 see this as a dead heat. New Jersey is projected between 2.3 and 2.6 goals, Los Angeles at 54% win probability—nearly as close to even money as the NHL offers.

The Devils' case: They're the warmer team, 8-2-0 in their last 10. The Kings' case: Five-on-five, the separation is negligible. New Jersey sits at 50.0% xG, Los Angeles at 52.0%; Corsis tell the same story (51.0% vs. 52.0%). This is a choice between two competent ensembles, not a blowout waiting to happen.

New Jersey's PDO of 0.971 means they're running cold—shooting and save percentage both below expectation. Regression math says they're due for a positive swing. Los Angeles, at 1.002, is running hot. Luck tends to flatten out, which gives the Devils a theoretical edge—but that advantage shrinks when you consider Los Angeles's marginal superiority in shot quality.

Both teams face a goaltending complication. D. Kuemper and J. Allen are on back-to-backs, which historically invites either a backup or a tired starter. Neither team can count on a completely fresh stopper.

For New Jersey, Timo Meier is the gravitational center—1.08 xG per 60 minutes, 13 goals, 15 assists, and three high-danger goals despite a modest 6.7% shooting rate. Jack Hughes, at 0.88 xG per 60 and 11.5% shooting on 18 goals and 17 assists, is the other engine; only one of his goals came from high-danger play.

Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere, who carries 0.87 xG per 60 with 16 goals, 18 assists, and two high-danger goals at 9.9% shooting. Jared Wright, at 0.83 xG per 60, has four assists and zero goals—a rare player generating chances without finishing.

Defensively, Johnathan Kovacevic is New Jersey's obvious weak point. Adrian Kempe occupies the same role for Los Angeles. In a tight game, depth matters.

This is the rarest thing in hockey: a game the numbers genuinely refuse to call.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 54%

54%

LAK

Model favorite

46%

54%

NJD50LAK

LAK by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 2.3–2.6 LAK; 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

NJD← edge

edge →LAK

50.0%52.0%

51.0%52.0%

2.452.42

2.502.20

1.661.85

2.231.71

0.9711.002

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 vs 1.002) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

NJD

8-2-0

+9 GD · 1d rest

LAK

4-2-4

-2 GD · 1d rest

0.971

NJD PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Allen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Devils are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

NJD

Expected in goal

J. Allen

back-to-back.821 last start

Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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.

LAK

Expected in goal

D. Kuemper

back-to-back.889 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.

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

NJD

Timo Meier13G 15A

1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh

Jack Hughes18G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page