Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater

Breakdown · LAK at TBL

Kings steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

FinalThu, Dec 18

LAKLos Angeles Kings2 TBLTampa Bay Lightning1

The verdict · stolen

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.13–4.39 and won anyway.

LAK 2 · TBL 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:53 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

The Kings won 2-1 against a Lightning team that dominated play. Los Angeles won the scoreboard 2-1 while losing the expected goals battle 4.39–2.13—a heist against the run of play.

This was a goaltending game. A. Forsberg (LAK) stopped 31 of 32, posting a 0.969 save percentage and gaining 3.39 goals on his expected output. A. Vasilevskiy (TBL) made 18 of 20 saves at 0.900. The Lightning created the better chances—they owned 67% of expected goals and won the high-danger count 8–4—but Forsberg turned away what should have been goals.

The Lightning controlled territory. They took 62% of shot attempts and generated 5 rebound chances, crashing the net effectively. The Kings managed 3 rebound chances and converted none. Yet LA was lethal on the rush, scoring twice on 13 rush attempts. One arrived early enough to set the tone: Adrian Kempe's backhander from the doorstep at 15:58 of the second period. That goal, combined with Forsberg's performance, was the difference.

The Lightning underperformed their xG by 3.39 goals—they created consistently but couldn't bury looks. They had the game's best play and left it at the rink.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 18

LAK

TBL

Kings steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

Chances 2.1 – 4.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

2.13

TBL

4.39

33% of the chances67%

The board read LAK 2, TBL 1. The chances read LAK 2.1, TBL 4.4.

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

Luck check

LAK

−0.1

goals above expected

LAK2.13 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

TBL4.39 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Lightning left 3.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 12:54TBLO. BjorkstrandPP0–1
P2 05:21LAKA. Kempe1–1
P2 15:58LAKA. Kempe2–1

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

Where the shots came from

LAK

26 shots

Final

81 shots

TBL

55 shots

LAK TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKTBL

1 / 4

0.93 xG

High danger

1 / 8

1.93 xG

0 / 7

0.90 xG

Medium

0 / 16

1.69 xG

1 / 22

0.29 xG

Low

0 / 53

0.76 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 1 of 4, TBL 1 of 8.

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

In the net

A+

A. Forsberg

+3.4

LAK · 31/32

A. Vasilevskiy

+0.1

TBL · 18/20

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kings steal one from the Lightning against the run of play

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 8–11

12:54TBLO. Bjorkstrandpower play(A. Cirelli, J. Guentzel)0–1

2ndshots 9–8

05:21LAKA. Kempe(A. Kopitar, C. Perry)1–1
15:58LAKA. Kempe2–1

3rdshots 3–13no goals

score reads LAK–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.13

LAK chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.048

LAK puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

30.0%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.13Expected goals4.39

TBL 67% of the chance quality

20Shots on goal32

4High-danger chances8

33All attempts (Corsi)77

Adjusted for score: LAK 29% · TBL 71%

Faceoffs · TBL won76%off63%neu26%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK1 / 4 · 0.93 xG

TBL1 / 8 · 1.93 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK0 / 7 · 0.90 xG

TBL0 / 16 · 1.69 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK1 / 22 · 0.29 xG

TBL0 / 53 · 0.76 xG

TBL went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.69 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

2 G · 2.13 xG · -0.1

TBL

1 G · 4.39 xG · -3.4

012345

LAK finished -0.1 against expected, TBL -3.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

WRIST1/13

SNAP0/6

TIP IN0/1

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND1/4

OTHER0/7

TBL

WRIST1/19

SNAP0/10

TIP IN0/13

SLAP0/9

BACKHAND0/4

OTHER0/22

LAK

TBL

Off the rush

2 G on 13

1.44 xG

0 G on 32

2.90 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.50 xG

1 G on 5

0.84 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-13, TBL 1-for-19. 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 · 31/32 · .969

+3.4

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/81.9+0.9

Medium0/161.7+1.7

Low0/530.8+0.8

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. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 18/20 · .900

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium0/70.9+0.9

Low1/220.3-0.7

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

26 shots

Final

81 shots

TBL

55 shots

LAK TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 15:41 on ice · +2

J. Guentzel

#59 · C · TBL

0 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 26:45 on ice

O. Bjorkstrand

#22 · R · TBL

1 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 20:54 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Dec 18

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:52 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

This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The model projects a 2.4–2.6 goal spread with Tampa Bay at 54% win probability—statistical noise masquerading as genuine separation.

Los Angeles and Tampa are separated by a hair in five-on-five play. The Kings generate 52.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi rates; the Lightning produce 54.0% xG% and 53.0% Corsi%. Tampa's marginal edge comes tethered to an unsustainable finish rate. Their 1.019 PDO will regress. Los Angeles, at 1.002, sits closer to baseline, meaning their true performance is probably slightly worse but more durable.

Brandon Hagel powers Tampa's offense. He averages 1.10 xG per 60 and has posted 23 goals and 26 assists, including two high-danger goals at a 15.8% shooting clip. Anthony Cirelli multiplies the problem: 0.95 xG/60, 15 goals, 18 assists, five high-danger goals, and a 17.0% shooting rate. Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere, who generates 0.87 xG per 60, has 16 goals and 18 assists, and converted two high-danger chances at a 9.9% clip. Jared Wright operates deeper in the roster—0.83 xG/60, zero goals, four assists—but maintains predictable offense.

Both teams have converted zero percent of high-danger and rebound situations into goals this season, a deficit that caps upside. Tampa's PDO bakes in finish-rate luck that will reverse; Los Angeles hasn't caught that fever. The regression, if it arrives during this matchup, decides the game.

Defensively, the weak links run opposite directions. Adrian Kempe represents Los Angeles's liability; Victor Hedman carries Tampa's defensive burden. In a game this tight, those vulnerabilities become the deciding edges.

Three Stars

Brandon Hagel (Tampa Bay)
Alex Laferriere (Los Angeles)
Anthony Cirelli (Tampa Bay)

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 54%

54%

TBL

Model favorite

46%

54%

LAK50TBL

TBL by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.4–2.6 TBL; 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 →TBL

52.0%54.0%

52.0%53.0%

2.422.67

2.202.28

1.852.38

1.711.85

1.0021.019

TBL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.019) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

LAK

4-3-3

+1 GD · 2d rest

TBL

4-5-1

+5 GD · 2d rest

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.019

TBL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

LAK

Expected in goal

A. Forsberg

2 days rest.850 last start

Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL

Expected in goal

J. Johansson

2 days rest.792 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

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

TBL

Brandon Hagel23G 26A

1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 15.8% sh

Anthony Cirelli15G 18A

0.95 xG/60 · 5 HD · 17.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page