Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater

Breakdown · LAK at UTA

Kings run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Dec 8

LAKLos Angeles Kings4 UTAUtah Hockey Club2

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 4 · UTA 2

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:32 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. Vejmelka saved 1.9 goals above expected, yet the Mammoth lost 4-2 — a reminder that even elite goaltending cannot fix a deficit in underlying play. The Kings controlled 65% of 5v5 expected goals (4.92–2.64) and the high-danger chances went 6–3.

Utah had shot volume, 44% of attempts (21–27), but not quality. The Kings generated 0.083 expected goals per shot; Utah 0.051.

The Mammoth were lethal on the rush, converting three goals off 21 chances. The Kings matched that production exactly — three goals on 21 rush chances of their own — while dictating play at even strength. D. Kuemper logged 0.905 save percentage with a +0.64 cushion, efficient without being spectacular. Joel Armia's snap shot from the high slot at 18:22 of the third ended the conversation, though the underlying numbers had closed it earlier.

Both teams created three rebound opportunities; neither converted. The Mammoth crashed the net with intent. But Utah's shot volume masked inferior chance quality, and even Vejmelka's excellence couldn't bridge a gap driven by how the game was actually played.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 8

LAK

UTA

Kings run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.9 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

4.92

UTA

2.64

65% of the chances35%

The board read LAK 4, UTA 2. The chances read LAK 4.9, UTA 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

LAK

−0.9

goals above expected

LAK4.92 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

UTA2.64 expected · 2 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

P1 07:50LAKA. Kempe1–0
P1 10:08LAKJ. Armia2–0
P2 00:34UTAD. GuentherPP2–1
P3 03:27LAKA. Kopitar3–1
P3 12:15UTAC. Keller3–2
P3 18:22LAKJ. ArmiaEN4–2

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

LAK

39 shots

Final

74 shots

UTA

35 shots

LAK UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKUTA

2 / 6

2.89 xG

High danger

0 / 3

0.74 xG

2 / 12

1.52 xG

Medium

1 / 13

1.44 xG

0 / 41

0.52 xG

Low

1 / 36

0.47 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

K. Vejmelka

+1.9

UTA · 23/26

D. Kuemper

+0.6

LAK · 19/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kings run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 12–7

07:50LAKA. Kempe(K. Fiala)1–0
10:08LAKJ. Armia(K. Fiala)2–0

2ndshots 7–6

00:34UTAD. Guentherpower play(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)2–1

3rdshots 8–8

03:27LAKA. Kopitar(A. Kempe, J. Edmundson)3–1
12:15UTAC. Keller(N. Schmaltz, J. Peterka)3–2
18:22LAKJ. Armiaempty net4–2

score reads LAK–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.92

LAK chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.9

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.029

LAK puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

53.2%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.92Expected goals2.64

LAK 65% of the chance quality

27Shots on goal21

6High-danger chances3

59All attempts (Corsi)52

Adjusted for score: LAK 48% · UTA 52%

Faceoffs · UTA won59%off69%neu54%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK2 / 6 · 2.89 xG

UTA0 / 3 · 0.74 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK2 / 12 · 1.52 xG

UTA1 / 13 · 1.44 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK0 / 41 · 0.52 xG

UTA1 / 36 · 0.47 xG

LAK went 2-for-6 from high danger on 2.89 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

4 G · 4.92 xG · -0.9

UTA

2 G · 2.64 xG · -0.6

0123456

LAK finished -0.9 against expected, UTA -0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

SNAP2/25

WRIST0/3

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND2/5

SLAP0/4

DEFLECTED0/0

BAT0/0

OTHER0/20

UTA

SNAP0/13

WRIST0/11

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND1/2

SLAP1/2

DEFLECTED0/1

BAT0/1

OTHER0/17

LAK

UTA

Off the rush

3 G on 21

2.24 xG

2 G on 21

2.03 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.33 xG

0 G on 3

0.36 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 2-for-25, UTA 0-for-13. LAK scored 3 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

D. Kuemper

LAK · 19/21 · .905

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium1/131.4+0.4

Low1/360.5-0.5

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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 23/26 · .885

+1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/62.9+0.9

Medium2/121.5-0.5

Low0/410.5+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

74 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

39 shots

Final

74 shots

UTA

35 shots

LAK UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, UTA 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

C. Keller

#9 · R · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:24 on ice

K. Fiala

#22 · L · LAK

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:38 on ice · +2

A. Kempe

#9 · R · LAK

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 16:37 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Dec 8

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:31 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 LAK 2.4–2.5 UTA game with the Mammoth holding 52% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. Neither team enjoys a meaningful edge in underlying play.

Both sides are even on expected goals at 5v5, posting 52.0% xG%. Utah edges out Los Angeles in Corsi by a single point (53.0% to 52.0%), a difference small enough to vanish within statistical noise. Their even-strength profiles tell the same story: these teams can't create separation in control. PDOs are equally neutral—LAK at 1.002, UTA at 1.003—meaning neither is getting lucky or snake-bitten on the bounce.

The variable that could swing this is goaltending. V. Vanecek plays his second straight night, raising the question of whether Los Angeles rides a tired starter or turns to a backup. Utah faces the same crossroads: D. Kuemper is also on a back-to-back. Whichever team deploys fresh goaltending holds an advantage in a game where the skaters won't decide it.

When you can't separate at 5v5, you hunt for edge players. Alex Laferriere carries the Kings' offensive load at 0.87 xG/60, with 16 goals and 18 assists backed by only 2 high-danger chances and a 9.9% shooting rate—efficient but not voluminous. Jared Wright provides support at 0.83 xG/60, though his 0 goals on 4 assists suggests he's creating chances others finish.

Utah counters with Dylan Guenther, whose 1.02 xG/60 tops the pace and finds the net at a staggering 16.8% rate—28 goals on 15 assists plus 3 high-danger conversions. Daniil But runs nearly as high an xG/60 at 1.01 despite modest goal volume (2G, 2A), with 1 high-danger goal at just 5.6% shooting, suggesting bad luck more than bad play.

The tactical edge sits in the margins. Adrian Kempe represents LAK's defensive weak link. Maveric Lamoureux fills the same role for Utah. Both teams have completely failed to score on high-danger and rebound opportunities (0% for each), suggesting neither has solved the hard part of finishing.

In a game separated by nothing but luck and goaltending, Utah's slightly sharper 5v5 Corsi and Guenther's elite shot quality offer a narrow edge. Expect one goal to decide it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 52%

52%

UTA

Model favorite

48%

52%

LAK50UTA

UTA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.4–2.5 UTA; 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

LAK← edge

edge →UTA

52.0%52.0%

52.0%53.0%

2.422.64

2.202.39

1.852.26

1.711.99

1.0021.003

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.003) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

LAK

4-3-3

+2 GD · 1d rest

UTA

4-6-0

+4 GD · 1d rest

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

V. Vanecek 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-back1.000 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.

UTA

Expected in goal

V. Vanecek

back-to-back.955 last start

Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 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.

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

UTA

Dylan Guenther28G 15A

1.02 xG/60 · 3 HD · 16.8% sh

Daniil But2G 2A

1.01 xG/60 · 1 HD · 5.6% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page