Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Sat, Dec 6 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at LAK

Kings shut out the Blackhawks, 6-0

FinalSat, Dec 6
CHIChicago Blackhawks0LAKLos Angeles Kings6
The verdict · earned

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

CHI 0 · LAK 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:16 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

D. Kuemper stopped all 23 shots he faced (1.000 SV%), 1.1 goals better than expected. S. Knight saved 26 of 32 (0.812 SV%), giving up 1.9 goals more than expected.

The Kings controlled 78% of expected goals (4.06–1.11), generating 6 high-danger chances to Chicago's zero. They dominated shot attempts 32–23.

Los Angeles overperformed their xG by 1.94 goals—the result of ruthless finishing: 5 goals on 27 rush chances, plus 3 rebound opportunities created (1 converted). Chicago underperformed their 1.11 xG, but the shortfall traced to one factor: chance quality. Los Angeles generated 0.075 xG per shot versus Chicago's 0.025, a threefold advantage. When one team's opportunities are that much more dangerous, 6–0 becomes the expected outcome.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 6
CHI
0
LAK
6

Kings shut out the Blackhawks, 6-0

Chances 1.1 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
1.11
LAK
4.06
22% of the chances78%

The board read CHI 0, LAK 6. The chances read CHI 1.1, LAK 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
+1.9
goals above expected
LAK4.06 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI1.11 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings scored 1.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 01:55LAKW. Foegele0–1
  2. P2 16:38LAKA. KuzmenkoPP0–2
  3. P2 19:06LAKB. Clarke0–3
  4. P3 04:46LAKB. Clarke0–4
  5. P3 06:18LAKM. Anderson0–5
  6. P3 09:34LAKA. Turcotte0–6
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
33 shots
0
Final
76 shots
LAK
43 shots
6
CHI attackLAK attack
CHI LAK Goal
33
shots · 0 in
43
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHILAK
0 / 0
0.00 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.64 xG
0 / 3
0.39 xG
Medium
5 / 16
1.83 xG
0 / 42
0.72 xG
Low
0 / 32
0.59 xG

High-danger looks: CHI 0 of 0, LAK 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Kuemper
+1.1
LAK · 23/23
F
S. Knight
−1.9
CHI · 26/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings shut out the Blackhawks, 6-0

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 11–7no goals
    2ndshots 5–13
    1. 01:55LAKW. Foegele(T. Moore)0–1
    2. 16:38LAKA. Kuzmenkopower play(K. Fiala, D. Doughty)0–2
    3. 19:06LAKB. Clarke(A. Turcotte, C. Perry)0–3
    3rdshots 7–12
    1. 04:46LAKB. Clarke(A. Kempe, A. Laferriere)0–4
    2. 06:18LAKM. Anderson(P. Danault, D. Doughty)0–5
    3. 09:34LAKA. Turcotte0–6

    score reads CHI–LAK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.06
    LAK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.9
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.111
    LAK puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    54.5%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    1.11Expected goals4.06
    LAK 78% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal32
    0High-danger chances6
    45All attempts (Corsi)54
    Adjusted for score: CHI 50% · LAK 51%
    Faceoffs · LAK won67%off65%neu52%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CHI0 / 0 · 0.00 xG
    LAK1 / 6 · 1.64 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CHI0 / 3 · 0.39 xG
    LAK5 / 16 · 1.83 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CHI0 / 42 · 0.72 xG
    LAK0 / 32 · 0.59 xG

    LAK went 5-for-16 from medium danger on 1.83 expected goals — 3.2 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CHI
    0 G · 1.11 xG · -1.1
    LAK
    6 G · 4.06 xG · +1.9
    01234567

    CHI finished -1.1 against expected, LAK +1.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CHI
    WRIST0/24
    SLAP0/4
    SNAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    TIP IN0/0
    OTHER0/12
    LAK
    WRIST4/23
    SLAP1/10
    SNAP0/5
    BACKHAND0/3
    DEFLECTED1/1
    TIP IN0/1
    OTHER0/11
    CHI
    LAK
    Off the rush
    0 G on 17
    0.82 xG
    5 G on 27
    2.94 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.01 xG
    1 G on 3
    0.70 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CHI went 0-for-24, LAK 4-for-23. LAK scored 5 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 · 26/32 · .812
    -1.9
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.6+0.6
    Medium5/161.8-3.2
    Low0/320.6+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 · 23/23 · 1.000
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    Medium0/30.4+0.4
    Low0/420.7+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

    76 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CHI
    33 shots
    0
    Final
    76 shots
    LAK
    43 shots
    6
    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
    D. Doughty
    #8 · D · LAK
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:35 on ice · +2
    B. Clarke
    #92 · D · LAK
    2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 17:36 on ice · +2
    A. Turcotte
    #15 · C · LAK
    1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 09:05 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Dec 6
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:13 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

    Los Angeles is the model's overwhelming favorite: 61% win probability and a projected 2.2-2.8 final, rooted in dominant puck possession. The Kings control play through sustained territorial advantage.

    At 5v5, the Kings hold 52.0% expected goals share to Chicago's 42.0%—a ten-point edge that compounds across three periods. They drive Corsi at 52.0%, meaning they dictate territory and force the Hawks into a reactive posture. This isn't variance; it's structural dominance.

    Both starting goaltenders face fatigue concerns. D. Kuemper works on a back-to-back for Chicago, while S. Knight does the same for Los Angeles. Either may yield to a backup, or expect rust that opens soft goals.

    Los Angeles's offensive weight sits on Alex Laferriere, who carries 0.87 expected goals per sixty while producing 16 goals and 18 assists. Jared Wright brings 0.83 xG/60 and four assists; he's a dangerous presence in high-danger areas despite zero goals. These two generate layered threats that stretch Chicago's depth.

    Chicago leans on volume volatility. Tyler Bertuzzi runs 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals and 15 assists on a hot 18.0% shooting rate—seven of those goals came in high-danger situations. Connor Bedard logs 0.82 xG/60 and 27 assists but converts at just 11.8%, trailing his underlying play. When Bedard's playmaking doesn't convert, Chicago's offense contracts sharply.

    The Kings' edge is structural: they sustain pressure (52.0% Corsi, 52.0% xG%) while Chicago relies on individual heat. That sustainability, not luck, is why the model favors Los Angeles at 61%.

    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
    4-4-2
    -4 GD · 1d rest
    LAK
    4-3-3
    -3 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.
    • D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • S. Knight 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
    CHI
    Expected in goal
    S. Knight
    back-to-back.963 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
    D. Kuemper
    back-to-back.944 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
    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