Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater

Breakdown · FLA at LAK

Panthers pull away from the Kings

FinalThu, Nov 6

FLAFlorida Panthers5 LAKLos Angeles Kings2

The verdict · stolen

The Panthers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.55–2.78 and won anyway.

FLA 5 · LAK 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:58 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 Panthers beat the Kings 5–2, but the underlying numbers suggest this was a closer contest than the scoreboard. Expected goals finished 2.78–2.55 in Los Angeles' favor. The Panthers' win came from elite finishing: they overperformed their xG by 2.45 goals.

Los Angeles controlled the run of play. They held 52% of shot attempts (26–24 on goal) and won the high-danger chances 5–2. Yet they scored just two goals. Goaltender A. Forsberg surrendered 19 saves on 24 shots (0.792 SV%), underperforming his expected mark by 2.45 goals—a historically bad night.

The Panthers' performance was its mirror image. S. Bobrovsky made 24 saves on 26 shots (0.923 SV%), outperforming expected by 0.78. More importantly, Florida capitalized ruthlessly. They scored four goals on 24 rush chances while the Kings managed two on 20. Brad Marchand's snap shot from the high slot in the third period (12:36) proved decisive.

The variance tells the story: Florida's 2.45-goal overperformance nearly equals the final margin. Strip out the goaltending collapse and elite shooting touch, and this becomes a one-goal game—reflecting what the underlying metrics called.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 6

FLA

LAK

Panthers pull away from the Kings

Chances 2.5 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Panthers took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

2.55

LAK

2.78

48% of the chances52%

The board read FLA 5, LAK 2. The chances read FLA 2.5, LAK 2.8.

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

Luck check

FLA

+2.5

goals above expected

FLA2.55 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK2.78 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Panthers scored 2.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 02:06FLAS. Bennett1–0
P1 09:23LAKA. KopitarPP1–1
P1 11:00LAKC. Perry1–2
P1 17:30FLAB. Marchand2–2
P2 11:45FLAS. Reinhart3–2
P3 08:41FLAA. LundellSH4–2
P3 12:36FLAB. Marchand5–2

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

Where the shots came from

FLA

34 shots

Final

70 shots

LAK

36 shots

FLA LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLALAK

1 / 2

0.54 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.16 xG

4 / 13

1.53 xG

Medium

1 / 13

1.20 xG

0 / 36

0.48 xG

Low

0 / 33

0.43 xG

High-danger looks: FLA 1 of 2, LAK 1 of 5.

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

In the net

B+

S. Bobrovsky

+0.8

FLA · 24/26

A. Forsberg

−2.5

LAK · 19/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Panthers pull away from 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 8–13

02:06FLAS. Bennett(J. Petry, J. Boqvist)1–0
09:23LAKA. Kopitarpower play(A. Kempe, Q. Byfield)1–1
11:00LAKC. Perry(M. Anderson, J. Edmundson)1–2
17:30FLAB. Marchand(A. Ekblad)2–2

2ndshots 8–6

11:45FLAS. Reinhart(C. Verhaeghe, N. Mikkola)3–2

3rdshots 8–7

08:41FLAA. Lundellshorthanded(E. Luostarinen)4–2
12:36FLAB. Marchand(N. Mikkola)5–2

score reads FLA–LAK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.55

FLA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.059

FLA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.55Expected goals2.78

LAK 52% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal26

2High-danger chances5

51All attempts (Corsi)51

Adjusted for score: FLA 47% · LAK 53%

Faceoffs · LAK won57%off46%neu46%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA1 / 2 · 0.54 xG

LAK1 / 5 · 1.16 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA4 / 13 · 1.53 xG

LAK1 / 13 · 1.20 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA0 / 36 · 0.48 xG

LAK0 / 33 · 0.43 xG

FLA went 4-for-13 from medium danger on 1.53 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

5 G · 2.55 xG · +2.5

LAK

2 G · 2.78 xG · -0.8

0123456

FLA finished +2.5 against expected, LAK -0.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

WRIST3/25

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND1/5

SLAP0/0

SNAP1/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/17

LAK

WRIST1/24

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP0/4

SNAP0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/15

FLA

LAK

Off the rush

4 G on 24

2.11 xG

2 G on 20

2.23 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.27 xG

0 G on 2

0.22 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: FLA went 3-for-25, LAK 1-for-24. FLA 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

S. Bobrovsky

FLA · 24/26 · .923

+0.8

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium1/131.2+0.2

Low0/330.4+0.4

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. Forsberg

LAK · 19/24 · .792

-2.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.5-0.5

Medium4/131.5-2.5

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

70 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

34 shots

Final

70 shots

LAK

36 shots

FLA LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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

N. Mikkola

#77 · D · FLA

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 19:26 on ice · +3

B. Marchand

#63 · L · FLA

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 15:08 on ice · +1

A. Ekblad

#5 · D · FLA

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:31 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Nov 6

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:56 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 2.3–2.6 game with the Kings at 55% win probability — about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Los Angeles enters as the hotter team, going 5–2–3 in their last 10 games. Florida, meanwhile, is underwater at -13 goal differential over that span.

At 5v5, Los Angeles owns the underlying play with a 52.0% expected goal share against Florida's 49.0%. Both teams post identical Corsi rates of 52.0%, but Los Angeles' PDO of 1.002 edges Florida's 0.989.

Both teams have goalies on back-to-backs. D. Kuemper and S. Bobrovsky could be fresh backups or fatigued starters — monitor the pregame lineups.

For Florida, Sam Bennett drives the offense at 0.97 expected goals per 60 minutes with 18 goals and 19 assists. Brad Marchand provides secondary firepower at 0.93 xG/60, adding 17 goals and 9 assists. Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere at 0.87 xG/60 and 16 goals with 18 assists, while Jared Wright anchors playmaking at 0 goals and 4 assists.

The Kings have the edge in form and underlying metrics, but the margins are thin. Call it a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 55%

55%

LAK

Model favorite

45%

55%

FLA50LAK

LAK by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score FLA 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

FLA← edge

edge →LAK

49.0%52.0%

52.0%52.0%

2.482.42

2.562.20

1.981.85

2.211.71

0.9891.002

LAK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 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

FLA

3-6-1

-13 GD · 1d rest

LAK

5-2-3

+0 GD · 1d rest

0.989

FLA 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 49.0%.

Things to watch

The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
S. Bobrovsky is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Kings are the hotter team by points pace (5-2-3 in their last 10).
The Panthers are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

FLA

Expected in goal

S. Bobrovsky

back-to-back.781 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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-back1.000 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

FLA

Sam Bennett18G 19A

0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh

Brad Marchand17G 9A

0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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