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

Kings shut out the Jets, 3-0

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 0 · LAK 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:39 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' shutout masks how much the Jets underperformed their expected goals. Winnipeg created 2.56 xG but scored zero; Los Angeles expected 4.24 and got three. The underlying story: both teams left goals on the table, Winnipeg catastrophically.

Los Angeles controlled 62% of 5v5 expected goals and dominated the high-danger chances 8–2. Drew Doughty's wrist shot from the top of the circles (P3, 19:06) stood as the turning point. The Kings' dominance in shot quality mattered more than volume: they generated 0.076 xG per shot versus Winnipeg's 0.052. The Kings' rush game was the differentiator: two goals on 24 chances, a clinical conversion rate that widened the gap.

D. Kuemper made 23 saves on 23 shots (1.000 SV%), stopping 2.56 goals above expected. C. Hellebuyck stopped 23 of 25 for Winnipeg (0.920 SV%, +2.24), holding his team in a game where they generated high-quality chances but couldn't finish. Both teams created three rebound opportunities and converted zero, a wash that leaves Winnipeg's goaltending as the sole bright spot. Hellebuyck stole the show on a night when his team's execution fell short.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 4
WPG
0
LAK
3

Kings shut out the Jets, 3-0

Chances 2.6 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
2.56
LAK
4.24
38% of the chances62%

The board read WPG 0, LAK 3. The chances read WPG 2.6, LAK 4.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−1.2
goals above expected
LAK4.24 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG2.56 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets left 2.6 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 17:09LAKA. Kempe0–1
  2. P3 15:00LAKK. FialaPP0–2
  3. P3 19:06LAKD. DoughtyEN0–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
39 shots
0
Final
78 shots
LAK
39 shots
3
WPG attackLAK attack
WPG LAK Goal
39
shots · 0 in
39
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGLAK
0 / 2
0.43 xG
High danger
2 / 8
2.73 xG
0 / 15
1.44 xG
Medium
1 / 11
0.99 xG
0 / 32
0.69 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.52 xG

The Kings buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Kuemper
+2.6
LAK · 23/23
A
C. Hellebuyck
+2.2
WPG · 23/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings shut out the Jets, 3-0

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 5–7
  1. 17:09LAKA. Kempe(J. Armia, M. Anderson)0–1
2ndshots 8–11no goals
    3rdshots 10–8
    1. 15:00LAKK. Fialapower play(C. Perry, Q. Byfield)0–2
    2. 19:06LAKD. Doughtyempty net0–3

    score reads WPG–LAK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.24
    LAK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.054
    LAK puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    53.3%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.56Expected goals4.24
    LAK 62% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal26
    2High-danger chances8
    49All attempts (Corsi)56
    Adjusted for score: WPG 50% · LAK 50%
    Faceoffs · LAK won55%off67%neu80%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    WPG0 / 2 · 0.43 xG
    LAK2 / 8 · 2.73 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    WPG0 / 15 · 1.44 xG
    LAK1 / 11 · 0.99 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    WPG0 / 32 · 0.69 xG
    LAK0 / 37 · 0.52 xG

    WPG went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.44 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    WPG
    0 G · 2.56 xG · -2.6
    LAK
    3 G · 4.24 xG · -1.2
    012345

    WPG finished -2.6 against expected, LAK -1.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    WPG
    WRIST0/16
    SNAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN0/7
    SLAP0/4
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/10
    LAK
    WRIST2/17
    SNAP1/6
    BACKHAND0/8
    TIP IN0/3
    SLAP0/5
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/17
    WPG
    LAK
    Off the rush
    0 G on 18
    1.22 xG
    2 G on 24
    2.30 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.40 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.31 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 0-for-16, LAK 2-for-17. 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
    C. Hellebuyck
    WPG · 23/25 · .920
    +2.2
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/82.7+0.7
    Medium1/111.0-0.0
    Low0/370.5+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

    D. Kuemper
    LAK · 23/23 · 1.000
    +2.6
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium0/151.4+1.4
    Low0/320.7+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

    78 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    WPG
    39 shots
    0
    Final
    78 shots
    LAK
    39 shots
    3
    WPG attackLAK attack
    WPG LAK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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. Doughty
    #8 · D · LAK
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 23:22 on ice · +2
    Q. Byfield
    #55 · R · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:15 on ice
    M. Anderson
    #44 · D · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 18:59 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Nov 4
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:38 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

    Los Angeles has the underlying advantage here. The model projects a 2.3–2.6 goal Kings win with Los Angeles at 56% to take it, built on season-long dominance in 5v5 play: 52.0% expected goals against 48.0% for Winnipeg, and 52.0% Corsi that should translate to territorial control throughout.

    Winnipeg's recent form—8-2-0 in their last 10—masks the structural gap. The Kings dominate expected goals (52.0% vs. 48.0%) and territory (52.0% Corsi%), the kind of persistent advantage that tends to compound.

    The matchup turns on shot quality and efficiency. Nino Niederreiter carries Winnipeg's offense at 0.87 xG per 60 minutes with 6 goals and 6 assists, converting 3 of his high-danger chances at 8.6%. Kyle Connor generates 0.83 xG/60 but has been more clinical—25 goals, 30 assists, 13.0% shooting—on just 2 high-danger conversions. For Los Angeles, Alex Laferriere matches Niederreiter's 0.87 xG/60 with 16 goals and 18 assists (2 HD conversions at 9.9%), while Jared Wright has 0 goals on 4 assists at 0.83 xG/60.

    Winnipeg's defensive weak link is Colin Miller. Los Angeles's is Adrian Kempe. Neither team converts off rebounds or high-danger situations beyond a nominal rate—both at 0%—which means this contest likely hinges on the volume battle the underlying numbers already favor. The Kings' territorial advantage, combined with Winnipeg's heavier reliance on depth scoring, makes Los Angeles the leaner play.

    Players to Watch

    Winnipeg: Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting); Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting)

    Los Angeles: Alex Laferriere (0.87 xG/60, 16G 18A, 2 HD goals, 9.9% shooting); Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0G 4A)

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 56%
    56%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    44%
    56%
    WPG50LAK

    LAK by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 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
    WPG← edge
    edge →LAK
    48.0%52.0%
    49.0%52.0%
    2.342.42
    2.552.20
    1.901.85
    2.101.71
    0.9981.002

    LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 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
    WPG
    8-2-0
    +15 GD · 3d rest
    LAK
    4-2-4
    -4 GD · 2d rest
    0.998
    WPG PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.002
    LAK 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 Jets are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    WPG
    Expected in goal
    E. Comrie
    3 days rest.933 last start
    Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    2 days rest.857 last start
    Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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
    WPG
    Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
    0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
    Kyle Connor25G 30A
    0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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