Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater

Breakdown · LAK at MTL

Kings run the Canadiens off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Nov 11

LAKLos Angeles Kings5 MTLMontreal Canadiens1

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 5 · MTL 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:29 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 beat Montreal 5–1, but the underlying numbers painted an even starker picture: a 10–1 edge in high-danger chances. The Canadiens held 46% of shot attempts (22–26) but generated low-probability looks—just 0.042 xG per shot compared to LA's 0.076, more than double the danger per attempt.

The underlying metrics confirmed total dominance: LAK controlled 65% of 5v5 expected goals (4.62–2.45). D. Kuemper saved 1.45 goals above expectation, turning the high-danger advantage into a blowout. S. Montembeault made 21 of 25 saves at 0.840, nearly a goal better than expected, yet no goaltender survives 10 high-danger chances against.

LA's efficiency extended to execution. They converted 2 of 24 rush chances and crashed the net relentlessly, creating 4 rebound opportunities and burying 1—the kind of second-chance finishing that compounds dominance. Warren Foegele's snap shot from the wing (Period 3, 15:32) epitomized their net-front presence.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 11

LAK

MTL

Kings run the Canadiens off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.6 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

4.62

MTL

2.45

65% of the chances35%

The board read LAK 5, MTL 1. The chances read LAK 4.6, MTL 2.5.

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

Luck check

LAK

+0.4

goals above expected

LAK4.62 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

MTL2.45 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 19:17MTLJ. Anderson0–1
P2 01:17LAKJ. Edmundson1–1
P2 04:17LAKQ. ByfieldPP2–1
P2 05:22LAKK. Fiala3–1
P3 11:08LAKJ. Armia4–1
P3 15:32LAKW. FoegeleEN5–1

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

Where the shots came from

LAK

45 shots

Final

85 shots

MTL

40 shots

LAK MTL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKMTL

3 / 10

2.79 xG

High danger

0 / 1

0.28 xG

1 / 10

1.23 xG

Medium

0 / 15

1.64 xG

1 / 41

0.61 xG

Low

1 / 42

0.53 xG

The Kings buried 3 of 10 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

B+

D. Kuemper

+1.4

LAK · 21/22

S. Montembeault

+0.6

MTL · 21/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kings run the Canadiens off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 12–9

19:17MTLJ. Anderson(L. Hutson, J. Evans)0–1

2ndshots 7–7

01:17LAKJ. Edmundson(B. Clarke, A. Kopitar)1–1
04:17LAKQ. Byfieldpower play(J. Edmundson, A. Kempe)2–1
05:22LAKK. Fiala(A. Laferriere, Q. Byfield)3–1

3rdshots 7–6

11:08LAKJ. Armia4–1
15:32LAKW. Foegeleempty net(P. Danault)5–1

score reads LAK–MTL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.62

LAK chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.4

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.065

LAK puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

51.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.62Expected goals2.45

LAK 65% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal22

10High-danger chances1

61All attempts (Corsi)58

Adjusted for score: LAK 47% · MTL 53%

Faceoffs · MTL won60%off50%neu40%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK3 / 10 · 2.79 xG

MTL0 / 1 · 0.28 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK1 / 10 · 1.23 xG

MTL0 / 15 · 1.64 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK1 / 41 · 0.61 xG

MTL1 / 42 · 0.53 xG

MTL went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.64 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

5 G · 4.62 xG · +0.4

MTL

1 G · 2.45 xG · -1.4

0123456

LAK finished +0.4 against expected, MTL -1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

SNAP4/26

SLAP1/6

TIP IN0/6

WRIST0/4

DEFLECTED0/2

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/16

MTL

SNAP1/26

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/3

WRIST0/5

DEFLECTED0/0

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/18

LAK

MTL

Off the rush

2 G on 24

2.56 xG

1 G on 26

2.26 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 4

0.81 xG

0 G on 1

0.03 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 4-for-26, MTL 1-for-26. 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

D. Kuemper

LAK · 21/22 · .955

+1.4

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.3+0.3

Medium0/151.6+1.6

Low1/420.5-0.5

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

S. Montembeault

MTL · 21/25 · .840

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/102.8-0.2

Medium1/101.2+0.2

Low1/410.6-0.4

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

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

45 shots

Final

85 shots

MTL

40 shots

LAK MTL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

Q. Byfield

#55 · R · LAK

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:55 on ice · +2

J. Edmundson

#6 · D · LAK

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:48 on ice · +2

L. Hutson

#48 · D · MTL

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:33 on ice · -3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Nov 11

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:27 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 2.5–2.4 Kings victory with Los Angeles at 52% win probability—a genuine coin flip. The underlying data explains why.

Los Angeles owns the territorial battle: 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals against Montreal's 48.0%, with Corsi dominance at 52.0% that confirms their advantage in shot attempts. This is legitimate depth-of-play edge, not statistical noise.

Montreal's escape hatch is built on efficiency that won't last. The Canadiens' PDO of 1.018 is running hot—Los Angeles sits at 1.002, roughly neutral—and that gap will narrow. When it does, Montreal's margin disappears.

The game tilts on individual performance. Alex Laferriere leads LAK with 0.87 xG per 60 minutes and 16 goals on a 9.9% shooting percentage, meaning he's converting chances at elite rates. Cole Caufield counters for Montreal: higher volume (0.97 xG per 60) but a 20.0% shooting rate that cannot hold. Caufield has 33 goals and 16 assists despite the xG% disadvantage, a feat that reversion will undo.

Oliver Kapanen provides secondary production for Montreal (19 goals, 12 assists, 17.8% shooting), while Jared Wright remains a depth risk for LAK, stranded at 0 goals on 0.83 xG per 60.

Adrian Kempe stands out as a defensive liability for LAK; Mike Matheson for Montreal carries similar exposure. Neither flaw is decisive at even odds.

This game belongs in the pick'em category because it is. Los Angeles has the superior process. Montreal has the unsustainable finish. Whoever executes in the third period wins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 52%

52%

LAK

Model favorite

52%

48%

LAK50MTL

LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.4 MTL; 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 →MTL

52.0%48.0%

52.0%49.0%

2.422.41

2.202.62

1.852.24

1.711.96

1.0021.018

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.018) says MTL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

LAK

6-2-2

+1 GD · 2d rest

MTL

6-2-2

+6 GD · 2d rest

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.018

MTL 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.

Regression watch

The Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.

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 Canadiens' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

LAK

Expected in goal

D. Kuemper

2 days rest.939 last start

Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MTL

Expected in goal

S. Montembeault

2 days rest.926 last start

Backup Jakub Dobes · +17.3 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

MTL

Cole Caufield33G 16A

0.97 xG/60 · 1 HD · 20.0% sh

Oliver Kapanen19G 12A

0.83 xG/60 · 4 HD · 17.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page