Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater
Breakdown · LAK at FLA

Panthers hold off the Kings

The verdict · stolen

The Panthers stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.08–3.16 and won anyway.

LAK 2 · FLA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:47 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

Los Angeles dominated by expected goals—56% to 44%—and still lost. The Kings generated 4.08 xG to Florida's 3.16, controlled high-danger chances 7–4, and were stalled by elite goaltending and their own terrible execution.

D. Tarasov's performance accounted for the entire difference. He made 27 saves on 29 shots (0.931 SV%), saving 2.08 goals above expected and stopping 100% of the seven high-danger chances he faced. A. Forsberg, meanwhile, faced easier volume (26 saves on 29 shots, 0.897 SV%), and the gap in quality—rather than volume—tilted the game.

The Kings couldn't convert what they created. Zero goals on seven high-danger chances is not a repeatable result, but it defined this one. They crashed the offensive zone effectively (5 rebound opportunities) and generated from everywhere. Rush chances split evenly—both teams scored twice on roughly 23 attempts—meaning the advantage was elsewhere. The Kings' dominance came from sustained pressure and positioning. None of it mattered against a goaltender playing a theft.

The Panthers' path was simpler: survive, execute in brief windows, and let goaltending do the heavy lifting. B. Marchand assisted twice, A. Ekblad added a helper, and S. Bennett scored. On the whole, Florida was outplayed but held serve, a result that hinges entirely on one goaltender's margin.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 17
LAK
2
FLA
3

Panthers hold off the Kings

Chances 4.1 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
4.08
FLA
3.16
56% of the chances44%

The board read LAK 2, FLA 3. The chances read LAK 4.1, FLA 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
FLA
−0.2
goals above expected
FLA3.16 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK4.08 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings left 2.1 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. P1 13:39LAKJ. ArmiaPP1–0
  2. P2 02:14FLAA. LundellPP1–1
  3. P2 07:04FLAC. Verhaeghe1–2
  4. P3 00:10FLAS. Bennett1–3
  5. P3 04:48LAKK. Fiala2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
43 shots
2
Final
83 shots
FLA
40 shots
3
LAK attackFLA attack
LAK FLA Goal
43
shots · 2 in
40
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKFLA
0 / 7
1.87 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.20 xG
2 / 16
1.75 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.37 xG
0 / 43
0.46 xG
Low
0 / 41
0.59 xG

The Kings went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Tarasov
+2.1
FLA · 27/29
C
A. Forsberg
+0.2
LAK · 26/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Panthers 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 8–8
  1. 13:39LAKJ. Armiapower play(B. Clarke, A. Laferriere)1–0
2ndshots 10–13
  1. 02:14FLAA. Lundellpower play(A. Ekblad, M. Samoskevich)1–1
  2. 07:04FLAC. Verhaeghe(J. Petry, B. Marchand)1–2
3rdshots 11–8
  1. 00:10FLAS. Bennett(B. Marchand)1–3
  2. 04:48LAKK. Fiala2–3

score reads LAK–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.16
FLA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.022
FLA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.08Expected goals3.16
LAK 56% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal29
7High-danger chances4
66All attempts (Corsi)57
Adjusted for score: LAK 56% · FLA 44%
Faceoffs · FLA won41%off50%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK0 / 7 · 1.87 xG
FLA1 / 4 · 1.20 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK2 / 16 · 1.75 xG
FLA2 / 12 · 1.37 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK0 / 43 · 0.46 xG
FLA0 / 41 · 0.59 xG

LAK went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.87 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
2 G · 4.08 xG · -2.1
FLA
3 G · 3.16 xG · -0.2
012345

LAK finished -2.1 against expected, FLA -0.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
SNAP0/12
WRIST0/6
SLAP0/7
TIP IN1/6
BACKHAND0/7
DEFLECTED1/2
POKE0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/23
FLA
SNAP0/24
WRIST1/6
SLAP0/3
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED1/1
POKE0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/17
LAK
FLA
Off the rush
2 G on 22
2.33 xG
2 G on 23
1.78 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.79 xG
0 G on 1
0.19 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 0-for-12, FLA 0-for-24. LAK 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
A. Forsberg
LAK · 26/29 · .897
+0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.2+0.2
Medium2/121.4-0.6
Low0/410.6+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. Tarasov
FLA · 27/29 · .931
+2.1
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.9+1.9
Medium2/161.8-0.3
Low0/430.5+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

83 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
LAK
43 shots
2
Final
83 shots
FLA
40 shots
3
LAK attackFLA attack
LAK FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, FLA 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
B. Marchand
#63 · L · FLA
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:26 on ice · +1
A. Ekblad
#5 · D · FLA
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:30 on ice
S. Bennett
#9 · C · FLA
1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 20:30 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Dec 17
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:38 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 2.5–2.5 with the Kings at 50% probability. It's a true pick'em.

Los Angeles owns the underlying play: 52.0% expected goals to 49.0%, paired with an identical 52.0% Corsi. Florida's PDO sits at 0.989, slightly depressed; Los Angeles at 1.002, slightly lifted. These margins—advantageous but small—fade in a single game. On talent and structure, the gap doesn't exist.

Execution will matter more than process. Sam Bennett (0.97 xG/60, 18 goals, 19 assists) has scored 6 of those from high-danger chances on a 13.1% shooting rate that reflects genuine skill. Alex Laferriere counters at 0.87 xG/60 with 16 goals, 18 assists, and 2 hard-chance goals on 9.9%, evidence his finishing outpaces his volume. Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 17 goals, 9 assists, 19.5% shooting) deepens Florida's attack, though his shooting will regress. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0 goals, 4 assists) facilitates for Los Angeles without converting.

The Kings have the cleaner metrics. Florida counters with shooting depth. In a game this even, neither edge survives contact. Take your coin—it lands either way.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 51%
51%
LAK
Model favorite
51%
49%
LAK50FLA

LAK by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.5 FLA; 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
LAK← edge
edge →FLA
52.0%49.0%
52.0%52.0%
2.422.48
2.202.56
1.851.98
1.712.21
1.0020.989

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.989) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
LAK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
FLA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA 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 49.0%.
Things to watch
  • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next