Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Sat, Nov 29 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at LAK

Kings edge the Canucks in overtime

Final / OTSat, Nov 29
VANVancouver Canucks1LAKLos Angeles Kings2
The verdict · earned

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

VAN 1 · LAK 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:21 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

K. Lankinen stopped 1.05 goals above expected—an elite performance that kept the Canucks alive in a game they were losing underneath. The Kings controlled 57% of 5v5 expected goals (3.05–2.30), held 54% of shot attempts (23–20 on goal), and won high-danger chances 3–2. Yet Lankinen held the line until overtime.

A. Kempe finished it at 03:58 of OT with a snap shot from the high slot. Kempe did the heavy lifting—1 goal, 1 assist in 18:19—with support from #55 Q. Byfield (1A, 22:07) and #2 B. Dumoulin (1A, 21:47).

Both teams underperformed their expected goals. The Kings left 1.05 on the ice; Vancouver left 1.30. A. Forsberg (LAK) stopped 1.30 goals above expected in a compact 20-shot night, but the Kings' underlying control made underperformance survivable. For Vancouver, it wasn't.

Net-front activity separated the teams. LA generated 7 rebound opportunities and converted 1—finish discipline in a tight game. The Kings' shot volume and high-danger edge meant they carried the play into sudden death, even as both goalies outperformed their expected results.

The 2-1 overtime result aligned with the Kings' 57% xG dominance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 29
VAN
1
LAK
2

Kings edge the Canucks in overtime

Chances 2.3 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
2.30
LAK
3.05
43% of the chances57%

The board read VAN 1, LAK 2. The chances read VAN 2.3, LAK 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−1.1
goals above expected
LAK3.05 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN2.30 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
  1. P1 17:19LAKA. Kopitar0–1
  2. P2 02:52VANE. Kane1–1
  3. OT 03:58LAKA. Kempe1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
40 shots
1
Final
78 shots
LAK
38 shots
2
VAN attackLAK attack
VAN LAK Goal
40
shots · 1 in
38
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANLAK
1 / 2
0.40 xG
High danger
1 / 3
0.65 xG
0 / 12
1.25 xG
Medium
1 / 17
1.93 xG
0 / 37
0.65 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.47 xG

High-danger looks: VAN 1 of 2, LAK 1 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Forsberg
+1.3
LAK · 19/20
B+
K. Lankinen
+1.1
VAN · 21/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings edge the Canucks in overtime

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 6–7
  1. 17:19LAKA. Kopitar(A. Kempe, B. Dumoulin)0–1
2ndshots 6–6
  1. 02:52VANE. Kane(D. O'Connor, T. Myers)1–1
3rdshots 7–9no goals
    OTshots 1–1
    1. 03:58LAKA. Kempe(Q. Byfield, K. Fiala)1–2

    score reads VAN–LAK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.05
    LAK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.017
    LAK puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    51.4%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.30Expected goals3.05
    LAK 57% of the chance quality
    20Shots on goal23
    2High-danger chances3
    51All attempts (Corsi)54
    Adjusted for score: VAN 49% · LAK 51%
    Faceoffs · LAK won50%off33%neu53%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    VAN1 / 2 · 0.40 xG
    LAK1 / 3 · 0.65 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    VAN0 / 12 · 1.25 xG
    LAK1 / 17 · 1.93 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    VAN0 / 37 · 0.65 xG
    LAK0 / 34 · 0.47 xG

    VAN went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.25 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    VAN
    1 G · 2.30 xG · -1.3
    LAK
    2 G · 3.05 xG · -1.1
    01234

    VAN finished -1.3 against expected, LAK -1.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    VAN
    WRIST0/30
    SNAP1/3
    SLAP0/1
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    BAT0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/11
    LAK
    WRIST0/17
    SNAP2/10
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN0/2
    BACKHAND0/2
    BAT0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/16
    VAN
    LAK
    Off the rush
    1 G on 27
    1.75 xG
    1 G on 19
    1.71 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.29 xG
    1 G on 7
    1.05 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 0-for-30, LAK 0-for-17.

    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
    K. Lankinen
    VAN · 21/23 · .913
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/30.7-0.3
    Medium1/171.9+0.9
    Low0/340.5+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

    A. Forsberg
    LAK · 19/20 · .950
    +1.3
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/20.4-0.6
    Medium0/121.3+1.3
    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

    78 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    VAN
    40 shots
    1
    Final
    78 shots
    LAK
    38 shots
    2
    VAN attackLAK attack
    VAN LAK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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
    A. Kempe
    #9 · R · LAK
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:19 on ice · +2
    Q. Byfield
    #55 · R · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:07 on ice · +1
    B. Dumoulin
    #2 · D · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:47 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Nov 29
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:18 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 2.2–2.8 LAK victory with the Kings at 59% win probability. That edge rests on form and the play underneath.

    Los Angeles has momentum: 5-2-3 in their last 10. Vancouver is stalled at -7 goal differential over the same stretch. That gap isn't coincidence.

    The Kings dominate in the metrics that predict the future. They control 52.0% of expected goals and 52.0% of Corsi—they're pushing Vancouver around territorially and forcing them to defend. Vancouver's 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi tell you exactly who's in control at 5v5.

    The Canucks' 0.974 PDO offers a glimmer of hope. That's a team running cold, and cold teams regress toward average. If Vancouver gets even one bounce, the game tightens. But hope isn't a wager.

    Goaltending compounds the chaos. Both D. Kuemper and N. Tolopilo are on back-to-backs. Watch for a backup or a tired starter—either changes the complexion.

    For Vancouver, Filip Chytil is the wild card: 1.03 xG/60, 3 goals, 1 high-danger chance, shooting at an unsustainable 15.0%. Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13 goals, 11 assists, 3 high-danger chances, 11.8% shooting) is the higher-floor threat.

    Los Angeles has Alex Laferriere running hot: 0.87 xG/60, 16 goals, 18 assists, 2 high-danger chances, 9.9% shooting. That's sustainable production. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0 goals, 4 assists) doesn't need the scoresheet to matter.

    Los Angeles is the lean here. Their edge in controlled play is real, and Vancouver's PDO won't save them tonight.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 59%
    59%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    41%
    59%
    VAN50LAK

    LAK by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.2–2.8 LAK; 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
    VAN← edge
    edge →LAK
    44.0%52.0%
    46.0%52.0%
    2.222.42
    2.812.20
    1.601.85
    2.561.71
    0.9741.002

    LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 vs 1.002) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    VAN
    3-5-2
    -7 GD · 1d rest
    LAK
    5-2-3
    +1 GD · 1d rest
    0.974
    VAN 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 Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • N. Tolopilo is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Kings are the hotter team by points pace (5-2-3 in their last 10).
    • The Canucks are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    VAN
    Expected in goal
    N. Tolopilo
    back-to-back.875 last start
    Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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.

    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    back-to-back.871 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.

    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
    VAN
    Filip Chytil3G 0A
    1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Drew O'Connor13G 11A
    0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% 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