Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
← Thu, Dec 4 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at LAK

Blackhawks hold off the Kings

FinalThu, Dec 4
CHIChicago Blackhawks2LAKLos Angeles Kings1
The verdict · coin flip

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

CHI 2 · LAK 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:27 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

S. Knight stole this game. The expected goals nearly split even at 3.35 for Chicago and 3.47 for Los Angeles, yet the Blackhawks won 2-1—a margin that owed entirely to goaltending. Knight saved 2.35 goals above expected, while D. Kuemper stopped 1.47 more than he should have, a difference that proved decisive.

The Kings underperformed their xG by 2.35 goals, wasting quality opportunities. Los Angeles held 43% of shot attempts and created eight rebound opportunities without converting any, a pattern of inefficiency that strangled their chances. Chicago, meanwhile, was lethal off the rush: two goals on 28 such chances, a conversion rate that defied the overall play's parity.

Trevor Moore's wrist shot from a sharp angle (10:38, P3) was the game's turning point, but Knight's exceptional net-minding was what truly decided it.

Three Stars

  • #91 F. Nazar (CHI) — 2A in 18:48
  • #44 W. Kaiser (CHI) — 1G in 20:21
  • #98 C. Bedard (CHI) — 1G in 17:59
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 4
CHI
2
LAK
1

Blackhawks hold off the Kings

Chances 3.5 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Blackhawks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
3.47
LAK
3.35
51% of the chances49%

The board read CHI 2, LAK 1. The chances read CHI 3.5, LAK 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
−1.5
goals above expected
CHI3.47 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK3.35 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings left 2.4 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. P2 06:17CHIC. BedardPP1–0
  2. P2 19:54CHIW. Kaiser2–0
  3. P3 10:38LAKT. Moore2–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
48 shots
2
Final
95 shots
LAK
47 shots
1
CHI attackLAK attack
CHI LAK Goal
48
shots · 2 in
47
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHILAK
2 / 6
1.34 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.38 xG
0 / 10
1.24 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.31 xG
0 / 52
0.90 xG
Low
0 / 56
0.67 xG

The Blackhawks buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Knight
+2.4
CHI · 26/27
B+
D. Kuemper
+1.5
LAK · 34/36
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blackhawks hold off the Kings

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 13–12no goals
    2ndshots 12–8
    1. 06:17CHIC. Bedardpower play(T. Bertuzzi, F. Nazar)1–0
    2. 19:54CHIW. Kaiser(F. Nazar, O. Moore)2–0
    3rdshots 11–7
    1. 10:38LAKT. Moore(W. Foegele)2–1

    score reads CHI–LAK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.47
    CHI chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.016
    CHI puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    47.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.47Expected goals3.35
    CHI 51% of the chance quality
    36Shots on goal27
    6High-danger chances7
    68All attempts (Corsi)74
    Adjusted for score: CHI 45% · LAK 55%
    Faceoffs · LAK won50%off58%neu61%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI2 / 6 · 1.34 xG
    LAK1 / 7 · 1.38 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI0 / 10 · 1.24 xG
    LAK0 / 11 · 1.31 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI0 / 52 · 0.90 xG
    LAK0 / 56 · 0.67 xG

    LAK went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.31 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    2 G · 3.47 xG · -1.5
    LAK
    1 G · 3.35 xG · -2.4
    01234

    CHI finished -1.5 against expected, LAK -2.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    WRIST2/39
    SLAP0/4
    TIP IN0/1
    BACKHAND0/2
    SNAP0/1
    BETWEEN LEGS0/1
    POKE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/20
    LAK
    WRIST1/34
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN0/5
    BACKHAND0/2
    SNAP0/1
    BETWEEN LEGS0/0
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/27
    CHI
    LAK
    Off the rush
    2 G on 28
    2.25 xG
    1 G on 25
    1.60 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.31 xG
    0 G on 8
    1.32 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 2-for-39, LAK 1-for-34. CHI 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
    S. Knight
    CHI · 26/27 · .963
    +2.4
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/71.4+0.4
    Medium0/111.3+1.3
    Low0/560.7+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

    D. Kuemper
    LAK · 34/36 · .944
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/61.3-0.7
    Medium0/101.2+1.2
    Low0/520.9+0.9

    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

    95 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    48 shots
    2
    Final
    95 shots
    LAK
    47 shots
    1
    CHI attackLAK attack
    CHI LAK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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
    F. Nazar
    #91 · C · CHI
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 18:48 on ice · +1
    W. Kaiser
    #44 · D · CHI
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 20:21 on ice · +1
    C. Bedard
    #98 · C · CHI
    1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 17:59 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Dec 4
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:01 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 goal range with the Kings at 61% win probability. That lean reflects Los Angeles's dominance in 5v5 play: 52.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi, versus Chicago's 42.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi. When one team drives both volume and quality, territorial control becomes destiny.

    Recent form amplifies the edge. The Kings sit 5-2-3 over their last 10 games, while the Blackhawks lumber underwater at -6 in goal differential over the same stretch. Chicago's underlying metrics suggest the shortfall isn't noise—they're being out-attempted and out-shot in ways that predictive models catch long before the scoreboard does.

    The Kings' structural superiority shows up in every meaningful spot. Tyler Bertuzzi leads Chicago's offense at 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals and 15 assists, leaning on an 18.0% shooting rate that will regress. Connor Bedard runs 0.82 xG/60 at 11.8% over 17 goals and 27 assists. Chicago's duo can't overcome Los Angeles's underlying advantage.

    Alex Laferriere (0.87 xG/60, 16 goals, 18 assists) anchors the Kings' punch. Jared Wright operates at 0.83 xG/60 with 4 assists. If the model's edge holds, the Kings don't need secondary scoring; process typically finds outcome over time.

    Limiting Bertuzzi's 7 high-danger goals becomes Los Angeles's defensive priority. Chicago must contain Laferriere's 0.87 xG/60 efficiency and 2 high-danger markers. Anton Frondell anchors Chicago's defense while Adrian Kempe does the same for Los Angeles—whichever falters first could decide a close game.

    The model's 61% lean reflects the underlying reality: Chicago can compete, but Los Angeles controls the play. That advantage deserves respect.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 61%
    61%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    39%
    61%
    CHI50LAK

    LAK by 22 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 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
    CHI← edge
    edge →LAK
    42.0%52.0%
    46.0%52.0%
    2.172.42
    2.942.20
    1.841.85
    2.411.71
    0.9961.002

    LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 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
    CHI
    3-4-3
    -6 GD · 1d rest
    LAK
    5-2-3
    +2 GD · 1d rest
    0.996
    CHI 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 42.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Kings are the hotter team by points pace (5-2-3 in their last 10).
    • The Blackhawks are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CHI
    Expected in goal
    S. Knight
    back-to-back.893 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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
    —
    no game on file

    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
    CHI
    Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
    0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
    Connor Bedard17G 27A
    0.82 xG/60 · 5 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