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

Kings hold off the Penguins

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 3 · PIT 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:13 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 3-2 in a game the advanced metrics could not believe. Pittsburgh held 55% of shot attempts (33–27 on goal) and generated 4.65 expected goals to Los Angeles's 3.86, a near-full-goal advantage that evaporated on the scoresheet.

D. Kuemper was the deciding factor. The Kings goaltender stopped 31 of 33 shots (0.939 SV%) and saved 1.86 goals above expected, elite goaltending in a tight game. S. Murashov faced fewer chances and lower-quality ones, stopping 24 of 27 (0.889 SV%) with 1.65 saved above expected, yet Pittsburgh still fell short.

Los Angeles generated eight high-danger chances to Pittsburgh's seven and converted at an efficient rate, including two from low-danger spots an opposing goalie is supposed to have. K. Fiala's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 11:52) set the tone. The Kings were lethal off the rush, scoring three goals on 28 rush chances. Pittsburgh created eight rebound opportunities and converted none.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 9
LAK
3
PIT
2

Kings hold off the Penguins

Chances 4.7 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
4.65
PIT
3.86
55% of the chances45%

The board read LAK 3, PIT 2. The chances read LAK 4.7, PIT 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−1.6
goals above expected
LAK4.65 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT3.86 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins left 1.9 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 08:48PITT. Novak0–1
  2. P1 14:58LAKA. KopitarPP1–1
  3. P2 07:48PITA. ManthaPP1–2
  4. P3 04:49LAKC. Perry2–2
  5. P3 11:52LAKK. Fiala3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
43 shots
3
Final
92 shots
PIT
49 shots
2
LAK attackPIT attack
LAK PIT Goal
43
shots · 3 in
49
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKPIT
1 / 8
2.67 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.43 xG
0 / 10
1.21 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.73 xG
2 / 43
0.76 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.70 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 1 of 8, PIT 1 of 7.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Kuemper
+1.9
LAK · 31/33
A
S. Murashov
+1.6
PIT · 24/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings hold off the Penguins

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 10–14
  1. 08:48PITT. Novak(E. Malkin, P. Wotherspoon)0–1
  2. 14:58LAKA. Kopitarpower play(K. Fiala, C. Perry)1–1
2ndshots 9–9
  1. 07:48PITA. Manthapower play(K. Letang, V. Koivunen)1–2
3rdshots 8–10
  1. 04:49LAKC. Perry(C. Ceci, T. Moore)2–2
  2. 11:52LAKK. Fiala(D. Doughty, A. Laferriere)3–2

score reads LAK–PIT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.65
LAK chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.6
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.015
LAK puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
50.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.65Expected goals3.86
LAK 55% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal33
8High-danger chances7
61All attempts (Corsi)59
Adjusted for score: LAK 52% · PIT 48%
Faceoffs · PIT won50%off53%neu47%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK1 / 8 · 2.67 xG
PIT1 / 7 · 1.43 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK0 / 10 · 1.21 xG
PIT1 / 15 · 1.73 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK2 / 43 · 0.76 xG
PIT0 / 37 · 0.70 xG

LAK went 1-for-8 from high danger on 2.67 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
3 G · 4.65 xG · -1.6
PIT
2 G · 3.86 xG · -1.9
012345

LAK finished -1.6 against expected, PIT -1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
WRIST3/29
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/2
BACKHAND0/4
POKE0/0
OTHER0/18
PIT
WRIST2/27
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/8
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND0/2
POKE0/1
OTHER0/10
LAK
PIT
Off the rush
3 G on 28
2.78 xG
1 G on 23
1.95 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.19 xG
0 G on 8
1.17 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 3-for-29, PIT 2-for-27. 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
D. Kuemper
LAK · 31/33 · .939
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.4+0.4
Medium1/151.7+0.7
Low0/370.7+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

S. Murashov
PIT · 24/27 · .889
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/82.7+1.7
Medium0/101.2+1.2
Low2/430.8-1.2

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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
LAK
43 shots
3
Final
92 shots
PIT
49 shots
2
LAK attackPIT attack
LAK PIT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, PIT 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
K. Fiala
#22 · L · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 7 SOG · 23:19 on ice · +1
C. Perry
#10 · R · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:50 on ice · +1
D. Doughty
#8 · D · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:16 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Nov 9
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:11 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 sees this as a dead-even matchup: 2.5 goals projected for each team, with the Penguins holding a marginal 51% win probability. That's as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The underlying metrics support the toss-up. Los Angeles leads in possession—52.0% xG% and 52.0% Corsi%—while Pittsburgh sits just behind at 51.0% and 50.0% respectively. The real separation comes in puck luck. Pittsburgh's 1.012 PDO suggests they've converted chances at a higher rate than expected; Los Angeles at 1.002 sits almost exactly at expectation. That narrow edge in PDO reflects real playoff-adjacent hockey: tight margins compound over a season, and the Penguins have squeezed a fraction more than they should.

Los Angeles brings Alex Laferriere, whose 0.87 xG/60 and 16G 18A profile makes him the game's most dangerous volume creator. His 2 high-danger goals and 9.9% shooting mark him as both skilled and hot. Jared Wright, generating 0.83 xG/60 with 0G 4A, profiles as a set-up threat—someone who'll generate looks even if the scoreboard doesn't reflect it.

Pittsburgh counters with Rickard Rakell, who mirrors Laferriere's dual threat: 1.01 xG/60, 13G 13A, with 3 high-danger goals and a 12.1% shooting rate showing both volume and finish. Rakell is the game's second-most dangerous forward. Filip Hallander (1.28 xG/60) loomed as the third pillar, but he's likely out on a conditioning assignment to the AHL and will need further evaluation.

The goaltending layer adds noise. A. Silovs, Los Angeles's starter, takes this game on a back-to-back—either a tired starter or a backup appearance. Either scenario introduces volatility that the 2.5-2.5 projection doesn't fully price.

Both teams show a curious statistical signature: 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate. That's not sustainable across a season and suggests one or both teams are due for regression. Whoever wins this game may do so not on execution but on the margin of a goalie standing taller in the moments that matter.

Each team has a defensive liability. Adrian Kempe is Los Angeles's weak link; Caleb Jones plays that role for Pittsburgh. Neither is catastrophic, but in a dead-even game, whoever forces the other into their third pair more often tilts the odds.

This truly is a coin flip. The model calls it right.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 51%
51%
PIT
Model favorite
49%
51%
LAK50PIT

PIT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.5 PIT; 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 →PIT
52.0%51.0%
52.0%50.0%
2.422.66
2.202.55
1.852.45
1.712.12
1.0021.012

LAK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
LAK
5-2-3
-1 GD · 2d rest
PIT
5-2-3
+7 GD · 1d rest
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • A. Silovs is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
LAK
Expected in goal
A. Forsberg
2 days rest.792 last start
Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PIT
Expected in goal
A. Silovs
back-to-back.958 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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
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
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next