Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater

Breakdown · LAK at TOR

Kings run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTThu, Nov 13

LAKLos Angeles Kings4 TORToronto Maple Leafs3

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 4 · TOR 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:50 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 4-3 in overtime, but the scoreboard tells a gentler story than the underlying numbers. Los Angeles controlled 68% of 5v5 expected goals (4.91–2.30), and the gap in shot attempts was even wider: Toronto managed just 15 to the Kings' 37.

What kept it close was goaltending. D. Hildeby (TOR) turned in 33 of 37 saves for a 0.892 save percentage that outperformed expectation by 0.91 goals. At the other end, D. Kuemper (LAK) posted 0.800 (12 of 15) and underperformed by 0.70. Together, those performances explain why a dominant Kings team needed overtime to finish.

Toronto was sharp on the rush: 2 goals on 16 chances. Los Angeles was less precise but higher volume: 3 goals on 40 rush attempts. High-danger chances finished 7–6 in Los Angeles's favor, reflecting the structural advantage they built over sixty minutes.

Quinton Byfield settled it at 00:35 of overtime with a slap shot from the top of the circles.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Nov 13

LAK

TOR

Kings run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.9 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

4.91

TOR

2.30

68% of the chances32%

The board read LAK 4, TOR 3. The chances read LAK 4.9, TOR 2.3.

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

Luck check

LAK

−0.9

goals above expected

LAK4.91 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

TOR2.30 expected · 3 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 08:06TORB. McMann0–1
P1 16:39TORJ. Tavares0–2
P2 06:51LAKW. Foegele1–2
P2 15:41LAKK. Fiala2–2
P2 17:16TORJ. Tavares2–3
P3 13:10LAKA. Laferriere3–3
OT 00:35LAKQ. Byfield4–3

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

Where the shots came from

LAK

61 shots

Final

87 shots

TOR

26 shots

LAK TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKTOR

1 / 7

1.64 xG

High danger

2 / 6

1.43 xG

2 / 23

2.56 xG

Medium

1 / 5

0.51 xG

1 / 57

0.71 xG

Low

0 / 22

0.37 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 1 of 7, TOR 2 of 6.

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

In the net

B+

D. Hildeby

+0.9

TOR · 33/37

D. Kuemper

−0.7

LAK · 12/15

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kings run the Maple Leafs 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 9–4

08:06TORB. McMann0–1
16:39TORJ. Tavares(O. Ekman-Larsson, M. Knies)0–2

2ndshots 11–4

06:51LAKW. Foegele(D. Doughty, M. Anderson)1–2
15:41LAKK. Fiala(Q. Byfield, C. Ceci)2–2
17:16TORJ. Tavares(W. Nylander, M. Knies)2–3

3rdshots 16–7

13:10LAKA. Laferriere(B. Clarke, B. Dumoulin)3–3

OTshots 1–0

00:35LAKQ. Byfield(D. Doughty, A. Kempe)4–3

score reads LAK–TOR

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.91

LAK chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.9

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.955

LAK puck luck

Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them

72.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.91Expected goals2.30

LAK 68% of the chance quality

37Shots on goal15

7High-danger chances6

87All attempts (Corsi)33

Adjusted for score: LAK 75% · TOR 25%

Faceoffs · TOR won47%off85%neu78%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK1 / 7 · 1.64 xG

TOR2 / 6 · 1.43 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK2 / 23 · 2.56 xG

TOR1 / 5 · 0.51 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK1 / 57 · 0.71 xG

TOR0 / 22 · 0.37 xG

LAK went 1-for-7 from high danger on 1.64 expected goals — 0.6 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

4 G · 4.91 xG · -0.9

TOR

3 G · 2.30 xG · +0.7

0123456

LAK finished -0.9 against expected, TOR +0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

WRIST2/32

SLAP1/11

TIP IN1/10

BACKHAND0/4

SNAP0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/26

TOR

WRIST2/18

SLAP0/2

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND1/4

SNAP0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/7

LAK

TOR

Off the rush

3 G on 40

3.07 xG

2 G on 16

1.61 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 9

1.55 xG

0 G on 1

0.21 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 2-for-32, TOR 2-for-18. 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 · 12/15 · .800

-0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/61.4-0.6

Medium1/50.5-0.5

Low0/220.4+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

D. Hildeby

TOR · 33/37 · .892

+0.9

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.6+0.6

Medium2/232.6+0.6

Low1/570.7-0.3

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

61 shots

Final

87 shots

TOR

26 shots

LAK TOR GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

M. Knies

#23 · L · TOR

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 23:50 on ice

J. Tavares

#91 · C · TOR

2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 21:59 on ice · +2

D. Doughty

#8 · D · LAK

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 21:22 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Nov 13

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 3:49 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 2.5–2.3 Kings victory with Los Angeles at 54% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The Kings own the underlying play: 52.0% 5v5 xG against Toronto's 46.0%, and drive territorial possession at 52.0% Corsi — well ahead of Toronto's 45.0%. Both teams carry a 1.002 PDO, so neither is inflated by shooting luck.

A back-to-back scenario looms for both goaltenders. D. Hildeby and D. Kuemper face consecutive nights — watch for either a backup appearance or a fatigued starter.

Offensively, the matchup hinges on conversion. Alex Laferriere leads Los Angeles at 0.87 xG/60 with 16 goals and 18 assists. His 9.9% shooting rate sits below elite territory, and he has only 2 high-danger goals. The gap between volume and finishing suggests upside for Los Angeles. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0G, 4A) has zero goals on a 0.0% shooting clip — an extreme outlier worth monitoring.

Toronto counters with Auston Matthews (1.10 xG/60, 17G, 13A, 1 HD goal) at 10.6% shooting — approaching elite rates — and John Tavares (0.91 xG/60, 15G, 24A, 3 HD goals) at 12.4% shooting, well above league average. Matthews is the sniper; Tavares is the accumulator.

Defensively, Adrian Kempe is Los Angeles's weak link, while Bo Groulx carries that burden for Toronto. Both teams show 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, suggesting either strong defensive discipline or a limited sample in those categories.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 54%

54%

LAK

Model favorite

54%

46%

LAK50TOR

LAK by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.3 TOR; 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 →TOR

52.0%46.0%

52.0%45.0%

2.422.24

2.202.67

1.852.09

1.712.52

1.0021.002

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

LAK

6-2-2

+4 GD · 1d rest

TOR

5-5-0

-2 GD · 1d rest

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.002

TOR 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 46.0%.
The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
D. Hildeby is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
D. Kuemper 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

D. Kuemper

back-to-back.955 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.

TOR

Expected in goal

D. Hildeby

back-to-back.905 last start

Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 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

TOR

Auston Matthews17G 13A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.6% sh

John Tavares15G 24A

0.91 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.4% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page