Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Mon, Nov 24 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at LAK

D. Kuemper stands tall as the Kings edge the Senators

FinalMon, Nov 24
OTTOttawa Senators1LAKLos Angeles Kings2
The verdict · stolen

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.66–2.67 and won anyway.

OTT 1 · LAK 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:34 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 Senators controlled 58% of expected goals at 5v5, yet lost 2–1. A heist requires a thief.

D. Kuemper was that thief. The Kings goaltender stopped 27 of 28 shots (0.964 SV%) and outperformed his expected save rate by 2.66 goals. More damning for Ottawa: he allowed zero of six high-danger chances. The Senators created a 1–6 edge in those chances and converted exactly none.

Ottawa's broader shot geography told the same story. The Senators took 28 shots to Los Angeles' 22, yet surrendered the game. The Kings' 42% expected-goals share masked a fundamental imbalance—L.A. was being badly outplayed.

The goal distribution exposed why shooting 58% xG sometimes isn't enough. L. Meriläinen (OTT) posted a 0.909 SV%, beating his expected rate by 0.67 goals, but that surplus evaporated against D. Kuemper's wall. The Senators underperformed their xG by 2.66 goals, a deficit Meriläinen could not bridge.

Ottawa's inability to finish was the night's central fact. They created six rebound opportunities and converted one. High-danger chances hit at zero percent. Rebound control meant nothing without conversion.

The turning point arrived in the third period: Brandt Clarke's slap shot from the point at 13:50. That goal, not goaltending heroics, shifted momentum when it mattered most.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 24
OTT
1
LAK
2

D. Kuemper stands tall as the Kings edge the Senators

Chances 3.7 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.66
LAK
2.67
58% of the chances42%

The board read OTT 1, LAK 2. The chances read OTT 3.7, LAK 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−0.7
goals above expected
LAK2.67 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.66 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators left 2.7 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. P3 05:31LAKW. Foegele0–1
  2. P3 10:49OTTF. Zetterlund1–1
  3. P3 13:50LAKB. ClarkePP1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
44 shots
1
Final
77 shots
LAK
33 shots
2
OTT attackLAK attack
OTT LAK Goal
44
shots · 1 in
33
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTLAK
0 / 6
1.32 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.83 xG
1 / 16
1.87 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.42 xG
0 / 32
0.46 xG
Low
1 / 33
0.43 xG

The Senators went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Kuemper
+2.7
LAK · 27/28
B
L. Meriläinen
+0.7
OTT · 20/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

D. Kuemper stands tall as the Kings edge the Senators

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 11–10no goals
    2ndshots 10–5no goals
      3rdshots 7–7
      1. 05:31LAKW. Foegele(J. Armia, J. Edmundson)0–1
      2. 10:49OTTF. Zetterlund(N. Matinpalo, N. Jensen)1–1
      3. 13:50LAKB. Clarkepower play(J. Edmundson, C. Perry)1–2

      score reads OTT–LAK

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.67
      LAK chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.7
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.023
      LAK puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      47.1%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.66Expected goals2.67
      OTT 58% of the chance quality
      28Shots on goal22
      6High-danger chances1
      54All attempts (Corsi)48
      Adjusted for score: OTT 54% · LAK 46%
      Faceoffs · LAK won21%off46%neu31%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      OTT0 / 6 · 1.32 xG
      LAK0 / 1 · 0.83 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      OTT1 / 16 · 1.87 xG
      LAK1 / 14 · 1.42 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      OTT0 / 32 · 0.46 xG
      LAK1 / 33 · 0.43 xG

      OTT went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.32 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      OTT
      1 G · 3.66 xG · -2.7
      LAK
      2 G · 2.67 xG · -0.7
      01234

      OTT finished -2.7 against expected, LAK -0.7.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      OTT
      WRIST1/23
      SLAP0/7
      SNAP0/8
      TIP IN0/2
      BACKHAND0/4
      POKE0/0
      OTHER0/10
      LAK
      WRIST0/15
      SLAP1/7
      SNAP0/3
      TIP IN1/5
      BACKHAND0/2
      POKE0/1
      OTHER0/15
      OTT
      LAK
      Off the rush
      0 G on 24
      2.49 xG
      1 G on 16
      1.26 xG
      Off rebounds
      1 G on 6
      0.78 xG
      0 G on 1
      0.12 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: OTT went 1-for-23, LAK 0-for-15.

      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
      L. Meriläinen
      OTT · 20/22 · .909
      +0.7
      saved above expected
      B
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/10.8+0.8
      Medium1/141.4+0.4
      Low1/330.4-0.6

      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. Kuemper
      LAK · 27/28 · .964
      +2.7
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/61.3+1.3
      Medium1/161.9+0.9
      Low0/320.5+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

      77 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      OTT
      44 shots
      1
      Final
      77 shots
      LAK
      33 shots
      2
      OTT attackLAK attack
      OTT LAK Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT 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
      J. Edmundson
      #6 · D · LAK
      0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:34 on ice
      B. Clarke
      #92 · D · LAK
      1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:24 on ice
      N. Jensen
      #3 · D · OTT
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 15:56 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Mon, Nov 24
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:33 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 a pick'em. It projects the game at 2.4–2.4 goals, with Ottawa favored at 51% win probability—close enough to a coin flip that narrative doesn't matter.

      This near-parity masks an underlying truth: Ottawa owns the underlying play. The Senators rank 56.0% in 5v5 xG and 53.0% in Corsi%, while Los Angeles sits at 52.0% and 52.0% respectively. That's meaningful control, but luck narrows the margin. Ottawa's PDO of 0.993 suggests regression upward; Los Angeles at 1.002 runs roughly to expectation.

      Brady Tkachuk (1.19 xG/60, 11G 20A, 7.5% shooting, 2 high-danger goals) and Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60, 13G 15A, 9.5% shooting, 1 high-danger goal) power Ottawa's attack. Tkachuk generates the most chances on the sheet and converts at 7.5%; Cozens sustains an elite 9.5% shooting rate despite lower volume. Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere (0.87 xG/60, 16G 18A, 9.9% shooting, 2 high-danger goals), who scores more often than his chances suggest—a sign that finishing, not volume, carries his load. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0G 4A, 0.0% shooting) generates looks without capitalizing.

      Both teams show identical inefficiency at the margins. Nick Jensen (OTT) and Adrian Kempe (LAK) are defensive weak links; the model's narrow projection suggests neither side will crack decisively.

      If Ottawa's process advantage converts to results, they escape with a win. If Los Angeles' superior efficiency on fewer chances finds daylight, the Kings keep pace. The model can't resolve the tie because the data doesn't support one. Trust the coin flip.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      OTT 51%
      51%
      OTT
      Model favorite
      51%
      49%
      OTT50LAK

      OTT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 2.4–2.4 LAK; 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
      OTT← edge
      edge →LAK
      56.0%52.0%
      53.0%52.0%
      2.662.42
      2.122.20
      2.181.85
      1.991.71
      0.9931.002

      OTT holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.993 vs 1.002) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · No games yet
      OTT
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      LAK
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      0.993
      OTT 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 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%.
      Computed danger · scouting

      Players to watch

      NHL stats API · our xG
      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
      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