Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Sat, Dec 27 · the slate
Breakdown · ANA at LAK

Kings pull away from the Ducks

FinalSat, Dec 27
ANAAnaheim Ducks1LAKLos Angeles Kings6
The verdict · earned

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

ANA 1 · LAK 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:57 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 beat the Ducks 6-1, a scoreline that obscures a close underlying battle—expected goals split 3.54 to 2.99 in Los Angeles's favor. Goaltending decided the gap: A. Forsberg posted a 0.962 save percentage (+1.99 vs. expected), while L. Dostal managed 0.800 (−2.46).

The Kings controlled play without overwhelming it. Shot attempts favored Los Angeles 54 to 46 percent (30–26 on goal). High-danger chances split 4–3. Yet Los Angeles scored four goals on 33 rush attempts, the kind of efficiency that turns marginal puck possession into blowouts. Anaheim squandered its quality chances, underperforming their expected goals by 2.0 to Los Angeles's +2.5.

A. Laferriere led the Kings' attack with three goals in 16:24, including a slap shot from the top of the circles. A. Kopitar added three assists in 17:38. B. Dumoulin contributed two assists across 20:57 of ice time.

The 6-1 margin masked a three-shot differential that barely qualified as a rout. Goaltending and finishing—not dominance—made the difference.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 27
ANA
1
LAK
6

Kings pull away from the Ducks

Chances 3.0 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
ANA
2.99
LAK
3.54
46% of the chances54%

The board read ANA 1, LAK 6. The chances read ANA 3.0, LAK 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
+2.5
goals above expected
LAK3.54 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA2.99 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings scored 2.5 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. P1 03:03LAKD. Doughty0–1
  2. P1 03:56LAKT. Moore0–2
  3. P1 10:21LAKA. Laferriere0–3
  4. P1 19:02LAKQ. ByfieldPP0–4
  5. P2 10:02ANAM. McTavishPP1–4
  6. P3 04:24LAKA. Laferriere1–5
  7. P3 13:15LAKA. Laferriere1–6
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
ANA
42 shots
1
Final
94 shots
LAK
52 shots
6
ANA attackLAK attack
ANA LAK Goal
42
shots · 1 in
52
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
ANALAK
1 / 3
0.62 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.93 xG
0 / 17
1.95 xG
Medium
4 / 18
1.84 xG
0 / 40
0.42 xG
Low
1 / 47
0.78 xG

High-danger looks: ANA 1 of 3, LAK 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Forsberg
+2.0
LAK · 25/26
F
L. Dostal
−2.5
ANA · 24/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings pull away from the Ducks

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 8–17
  1. 03:03LAKD. Doughty(Q. Byfield, C. Perry)0–1
  2. 03:56LAKT. Moore(B. Dumoulin, C. Ceci)0–2
  3. 10:21LAKA. Laferriere(A. Kempe, A. Kopitar)0–3
  4. 19:02LAKQ. Byfieldpower play(B. Clarke, A. Kuzmenko)0–4
2ndshots 12–1
  1. 10:02ANAM. McTavishpower play(L. Carlsson, B. Sennecke)1–4
3rdshots 6–12
  1. 04:24LAKA. Laferriere(B. Dumoulin, A. Kopitar)1–5
  2. 13:15LAKA. Laferriere(B. Clarke, A. Kopitar)1–6

score reads ANA–LAK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.54
LAK chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.070
LAK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
53.5%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.99Expected goals3.54
LAK 54% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal30
3High-danger chances4
60All attempts (Corsi)69
Adjusted for score: ANA 54% · LAK 46%
Faceoffs · LAK won65%off38%neu31%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
ANA1 / 3 · 0.62 xG
LAK1 / 4 · 0.93 xG
Medium dangermid-range
ANA0 / 17 · 1.95 xG
LAK4 / 18 · 1.84 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
ANA0 / 40 · 0.42 xG
LAK1 / 47 · 0.78 xG

LAK went 4-for-18 from medium danger on 1.84 expected goals — 2.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
ANA
1 G · 2.99 xG · -2.0
LAK
6 G · 3.54 xG · +2.5
01234567

ANA finished -2.0 against expected, LAK +2.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
ANA
WRIST1/24
SNAP0/8
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/18
LAK
WRIST0/25
SNAP1/8
SLAP1/7
TIP IN2/7
BACKHAND1/3
DEFLECTED1/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/17
ANA
LAK
Off the rush
0 G on 24
1.77 xG
4 G on 33
2.66 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
0.89 xG
0 G on 0
0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: ANA went 1-for-24, LAK 0-for-25. LAK scored 4 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
L. Dostal
ANA · 24/30 · .800
-2.5
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium4/181.8-2.2
Low1/470.8-0.2

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. Forsberg
LAK · 25/26 · .962
+2.0
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.6-0.4
Medium0/171.9+1.9
Low0/400.4+0.4

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

94 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
ANA
42 shots
1
Final
94 shots
LAK
52 shots
6
ANA attackLAK attack
ANA LAK Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — ANA 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
A. Kopitar
#11 · C · LAK
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 17:38 on ice · +3
A. Laferriere
#14 · R · LAK
3 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 16:24 on ice · +4
B. Dumoulin
#2 · D · LAK
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 20:57 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Dec 27
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:57 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 2.5-2.6 goal game with the Kings at 52% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. Both teams carry identical 52% marks in expected goals and Corsi at even strength, and neither has found a particular edge in their respective tactical setups.

The divergence sits in shot quality and volume. Anaheim's PDO of 0.981 reflects a team running cold on goal conversion, a deficit due for positive regression. Los Angeles, at 1.002, sits closer to break-even on overall puck luck. That's the edge: not talent, but variance working in the Kings' favor.

Beckett Sennecke anchors Anaheim's offense at 1.03 xG per 60 minutes with 20 goals and 19 assists, including 8 high-danger chances. His 13.5% shooting rate suggests room for positive regression. Cutter Gauthier carries a similar xG/60 rate (0.99) but has converted at 12.9%, posting 25 goals and 16 assists with just 2 high-danger tallies. If Anaheim scores, it comes through volume, not precision.

For Los Angeles, Alex Laferriere's 0.87 xG/60 has produced 16 goals and 18 assists, with just 2 high-danger tallies and a 9.9% shooting rate. Jared Wright's 0.83 xG/60 generates mostly assists (4) rather than finishes (0 goals). The Kings' scoring is thinner but more opportunistic.

Both teams have registered no high-danger goals and no rebound goals—a sign either depth is thin or finishers aren't clicking. On the back end, Anaheim's Mason McTavish and Los Angeles's Adrian Kempe represent defensive liabilities that a sharper opponent would target.

This matchup hinges on whether Anaheim's cold streak continues or breaks. The model says it's a toss-up. In reality, it depends on whether Sennecke and Gauthier find the target.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 52%
52%
LAK
Model favorite
48%
52%
ANA50LAK

LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score ANA 2.5–2.6 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
ANA← edge
edge →LAK
52.0%52.0%
52.0%52.0%
2.802.42
2.592.20
2.091.85
2.321.71
0.9811.002

LAK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.981 vs 1.002) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
ANA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
LAK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
ANA
Beckett Sennecke20G 19A
1.03 xG/60 · 8 HD · 13.5% sh
Cutter Gauthier25G 16A
0.99 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.9% 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