Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater

Breakdown · LAK at COL

Avalanche run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalMon, Dec 29

LAKLos Angeles Kings2 COLColorado Avalanche5

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 2 · COL 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:19 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 Avalanche won 5-2, and the shots were nearly tied at 26-25. The expected goals told a different story: Colorado controlled 64% (3.81–2.12), revealing a clear separation in opportunity quality.

Efficiency separated them. Colorado generated 0.065 expected goals per shot against Los Angeles's 0.040. The Avalanche converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances and scored twice on 26 rush attempts, while Los Angeles scored twice on 23 rush attempts but failed to convert any rebound opportunities.

M. Blackwood (COL) saved 23 of 25 shots (0.920 SV%), compared to A. Forsberg (LAK) at 21 of 25 (0.840 SV%). Colorado overperformed their expected goals by 1.19, a mark of clinical execution.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 29

LAK

COL

Avalanche run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.1 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

2.12

COL

3.81

36% of the chances64%

The board read LAK 2, COL 5. The chances read LAK 2.1, COL 3.8.

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

Luck check

COL

+1.2

goals above expected

COL3.81 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK2.12 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 09:24COLJ. Drury0–1
P2 05:15LAKC. PerryPP1–1
P2 13:21COLM. Necas1–2
P2 17:30COLB. Nelson1–3
P3 04:58LAKJ. ArmiaSH2–3
P3 18:23COLN. MacKinnonEN2–4
P3 19:15COLC. Makar2–5

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

Where the shots came from

LAK

43 shots

Final

90 shots

COL

47 shots

LAK COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKCOL

1 / 2

0.48 xG

High danger

2 / 4

1.24 xG

0 / 11

1.07 xG

Medium

2 / 19

1.90 xG

1 / 40

0.58 xG

Low

1 / 36

0.67 xG

The Avalanche buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

M. Blackwood

+0.1

COL · 23/25

A. Forsberg

−0.2

LAK · 21/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Kings 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 10–8

09:24COLJ. Drury(R. Colton)0–1

2ndshots 5–10

05:15LAKC. Perrypower play(K. Fiala, J. Edmundson)1–1
13:21COLM. Necas(G. Landeskog, N. MacKinnon)1–2
17:30COLB. Nelson(J. Kiviranta, S. Girard)1–3

3rdshots 10–8

04:58LAKJ. Armiashorthanded(A. Kempe)2–3
18:23COLN. MacKinnonempty net(A. Lehkonen)2–4
19:15COLC. Makar(V. Nichushkin, B. Nelson)2–5

score reads LAK–COL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.81

COL chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.047

COL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

52.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.12Expected goals3.81

COL 64% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal26

2High-danger chances4

53All attempts (Corsi)59

Adjusted for score: LAK 50% · COL 50%

Faceoffs · COL won44%off52%neu53%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK1 / 2 · 0.48 xG

COL2 / 4 · 1.24 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK0 / 11 · 1.07 xG

COL2 / 19 · 1.90 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK1 / 40 · 0.58 xG

COL1 / 36 · 0.67 xG

LAK went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.07 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

2 G · 2.12 xG · -0.1

COL

5 G · 3.81 xG · +1.2

0123456

LAK finished -0.1 against expected, COL +1.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

WRIST1/24

SNAP0/6

TIP IN1/8

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP0/3

POKE0/0

OTHER0/10

COL

WRIST3/28

SNAP1/7

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND1/5

SLAP0/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/12

LAK

COL

Off the rush

2 G on 23

1.55 xG

2 G on 26

2.06 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.32 xG

2 G on 5

0.70 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-24, COL 3-for-28. 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 · 21/25 · .840

-0.2

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/41.2-0.8

Medium2/191.9-0.1

Low1/360.7-0.3

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

M. Blackwood

COL · 23/25 · .920

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.5-0.5

Medium0/111.1+1.1

Low1/400.6-0.4

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

43 shots

Final

90 shots

COL

47 shots

LAK COL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

N. MacKinnon

#29 · C · COL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:08 on ice · +1

B. Nelson

#11 · C · COL

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:21 on ice · +1

C. Makar

#8 · D · COL

1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 21:38 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Dec 29

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:17 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

Colorado dominates the underlying play at 5v5. With 57.0% expected goals and 57.0% Corsi against LA's 52.0% on both metrics, the Avalanche project a 2.4–2.8 goal win and 57% win probability. That territorial tilt is the edge.

But PDO flags a ceiling. Colorado runs 1.021—hot by historical standards—against LA's 1.002. Regression is coming; the question is when.

Colorado's recent form suggests it won't matter. They're 9-0-1 in their last 10, the hotter team by points pace.

Both squads face goaltending jeopardy on back-to-backs. S. Wedgewood and A. Forsberg are each candidates for either a backup start or a tired starter. Whoever gets fresher goaltending gains an edge.

Colorado's offensive weight falls on Artturi Lehkonen, who generates 1.11 xG/60 while running 18 goals and 22 assists at 14.9% shooting, with 6 high-danger finishes. Ross Colton operates at 1.10 xG/60 with 7 goals and 15 assists, but his 4.9% shooting—1 high-danger finish—leaves room for negative regression. LA's primary threat is Alex Laferriere, who drives 0.87 xG/60 into 16 goals and 18 assists at 9.9% shooting, including 2 high-danger goals. Jared Wright complements him at 0.83 xG/60 with 4 assists and no goals—a winger running cold.

Adrian Kempe is LA's defensive liability. Nazem Kadri is Colorado's. Each team should hunt those mismatches.

The lean is Colorado's, provided PDO remains stable and the goaltending lottery breaks right.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 57%

57%

COL

Model favorite

43%

57%

LAK50COL

COL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.4–2.8 COL; 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 →COL

52.0%57.0%

2.423.03

2.202.30

1.852.63

1.711.56

1.0021.021

COL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

LAK

4-4-2

+5 GD · 1d rest

COL

9-0-1

+16 GD · 1d rest

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.021

COL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
S. Wedgewood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
A. Forsberg is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Avalanche are the hotter team by points pace (9-0-1 in their last 10).
The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

LAK

Expected in goal

A. Forsberg

back-to-back.962 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.

COL

Expected in goal

S. Wedgewood

back-to-back.800 last start

Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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

COL

Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A

1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh

Ross Colton7G 15A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page