Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Sat, Nov 15 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at OTT

Kings shut out the Senators, 1-0

FinalSat, Nov 15
LAKLos Angeles Kings1OTTOttawa Senators0
The verdict · coin flip

The Kings won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

LAK 1 · OTT 0
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:04 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 shut out the Senators 1-0 in a game where expected goals split 2.56–2.58, nearly dead even. The two teams generated identical high-danger chances (three apiece) and traded shots at roughly the same rate (17–18 on goal). By the underlying metrics, this was as close to a coin flip as hockey gets.

The Kings had the better shot quality, registering 0.061 expected goals per shot against Ottawa's 0.045. That slender edge in efficiency would have felt like nothing if not for what happened in the crease.

A. Forsberg (LAK) stopped the game at +2.56 goals above expected; L. Ullmark (OTT) was +1.58. Forsberg's performance exceeded his counterpart's by a full goal's worth of high-leverage play—the difference between a shutout and a tie. The Senators underperformed their xG by 2.56 goals, meaning they created legitimate scoring chances and buried none. The Kings underperformed theirs by 1.58, but one goal was enough.

That goal came from Alex Laferriere, who tipped in during the opening period at 09:19. M. Anderson (LAK) and Q. Byfield (LAK) earned the assists, both logging over 19 minutes.

Forsberg's dominance overshadowed the underlying structure of the game—two evenly matched teams where the Kings' goaltending simply refused to break. For Ottawa, it was a cautionary tale about wasted opportunity: a game they could have won by the metrics alone, lost to execution and a shut-down performance from the visitor's crease.

Three Stars

  • #44 M. Anderson (LAK) — 1A in 20:47
  • #55 Q. Byfield (LAK) — 1A in 19:36
  • #14 A. Laferriere (LAK) — 1G in 17:49
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 15
LAK
1
OTT
0

Kings shut out the Senators, 1-0

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

Dead even on chances. The Kings took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
2.58
OTT
2.56
50% of the chances50%

The board read LAK 1, OTT 0. The chances read LAK 2.6, OTT 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−1.6
goals above expected
LAK2.58 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT2.56 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators 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 09:19LAKA. Laferriere1–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
28 shots
1
Final
64 shots
OTT
36 shots
0
LAK attackOTT attack
LAK OTT Goal
28
shots · 1 in
36
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKOTT
0 / 3
1.44 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.63 xG
1 / 7
0.73 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.41 xG
0 / 32
0.41 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.53 xG

The Senators went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Forsberg
+2.6
LAK · 17/17
A
L. Ullmark
+1.6
OTT · 17/18
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings shut out the Senators, 1-0

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 5–4
  1. 09:19LAKA. Laferriere(M. Anderson, Q. Byfield)1–0
2ndshots 2–6no goals
    3rdshots 11–7no goals

      score reads LAK–OTT

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.58
      LAK chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −1.6
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.024
      LAK puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      42.4%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.58Expected goals2.56
      LAK 50% of the chance quality
      18Shots on goal17
      3High-danger chances3
      42All attempts (Corsi)57
      Adjusted for score: LAK 39% · OTT 61%
      Faceoffs · OTT won70%off25%neu78%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      LAK0 / 3 · 1.44 xG
      OTT0 / 3 · 0.63 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      LAK1 / 7 · 0.73 xG
      OTT0 / 14 · 1.41 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      LAK0 / 32 · 0.41 xG
      OTT0 / 40 · 0.53 xG

      LAK went 0-for-3 from high 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
      LAK
      1 G · 2.58 xG · -1.6
      OTT
      0 G · 2.56 xG · -2.6
      0123

      LAK finished -1.6 against expected, OTT -2.6.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      LAK
      WRIST0/15
      BACKHAND0/5
      SLAP0/4
      TIP IN1/2
      SNAP0/2
      OTHER0/14
      OTT
      WRIST0/24
      BACKHAND0/3
      SLAP0/3
      TIP IN0/3
      SNAP0/3
      OTHER0/21
      LAK
      OTT
      Off the rush
      1 G on 14
      1.06 xG
      0 G on 22
      1.85 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 1
      0.12 xG
      0 G on 2
      0.26 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 0-for-15, OTT 0-for-24.

      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
      A. Forsberg
      LAK · 17/17 · 1.000
      +2.6
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.6+0.6
      Medium0/141.4+1.4
      Low0/400.5+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

      L. Ullmark
      OTT · 17/18 · .944
      +1.6
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/31.4+1.4
      Medium1/70.7-0.3
      Low0/320.4+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

      64 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      LAK
      28 shots
      1
      Final
      64 shots
      OTT
      36 shots
      0
      LAK attackOTT attack
      LAK OTT Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, OTT 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. Anderson
      #44 · D · LAK
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 20:47 on ice · +1
      Q. Byfield
      #55 · R · LAK
      0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:36 on ice · +1
      A. Laferriere
      #14 · R · LAK
      1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 17:49 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Nov 15
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:03 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 2.3–2.5 goal game with the Senators at 55% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

      The Senators own the underlying play: 56.0% 5v5 expected goals compared to the Kings' 52.0%. That edge carries through to shot attempt share — 53.0% Corsi for Ottawa — but not to the scoreboard. The Kings' 1.002 PDO (a league-leading indicator of shooting luck) suggests they've been bailing themselves out; the Senators' 0.993 PDO tells you they've been snakebitten. In a vacuum, Ottawa's play deserves better odds. The tight probability reflects the Kings' fortuitous puck-luck regression risk.

      Both teams face goaltending strain: L. Meriläinen and D. Kuemper are each on a back-to-back. Watch for backup appearances or tired starters in the crease.

      On talent, the Senators field the more dangerous forward. Brady Tkachuk generates 1.19 expected goals per 60 minutes and has delivered 11 goals and 20 assists despite a 7.5% shooting rate — that underperformance is the PDO story. He's one of the most lethal finishers in the league with 2 high-danger chances converted. Alex Laferriere counterargues: 0.87 xG/60 for the Kings with 16 goals and 18 assists on a 9.9% rate, backed by 2 high-danger conversions. These are the two names that move this game.

      Ottawa's second line muscles up the advantage. Dylan Cozens contributes 1.00 xG/60 — league-strength production at 13 goals and 15 assists — with 1 high-danger goal on a 9.5% rate. Jared Wright shadows him with 0.83 xG/60 and 4 assists but sits at 0 goals on 0.0% shooting; expect the Kings to press here, though the small sample warns against over-reading it.

      The tactical wrinkle: both teams show 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound-goal rates at 5v5. This isn't incompetence; it's a sign of neither team cashing opportunistic chances. Adrian Kempe looms as the Kings' weakest defensive link; Nick Jensen carries that load for Ottawa. Neither looks catastrophic, but both could exploit soft coverage in a low-scoring affair.

      The pick'em odds are justified. Ottawa has the process edge; Los Angeles has the heat. L. Meriläinen and D. Kuemper decide whether that gap survives the crease.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      OTT 55%
      55%
      OTT
      Model favorite
      45%
      55%
      LAK50OTT

      OTT by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.3–2.5 OTT; 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 →OTT
      52.0%56.0%
      52.0%53.0%
      2.422.66
      2.202.12
      1.852.18
      1.711.99
      1.0020.993

      OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.993) says LAK 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
      OTT
      6-1-3
      +10 GD · 1d rest
      1.002
      LAK PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.993
      OTT PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
      Things to watch
      • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
      • L. Meriläinen 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.800 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.

      OTT
      Expected in goal
      L. Meriläinen
      back-to-back.857 last start
      Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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
      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
      OTT
      Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
      1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
      Dylan Cozens13G 15A
      1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page