Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Mon, Jan 5 · the slate
Breakdown · MIN at LAK

Kings hold off the Wild

FinalMon, Jan 5
MINMinnesota Wild2LAKLos Angeles Kings4
The verdict · earned

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

MIN 2 · LAK 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:21 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 Wild 4-2 in a game far tighter than the scoreboard. Expected goals split 4.76–3.99 to Los Angeles, with the Kings holding only 48% of shot attempts. Goaltending and conversion efficiency created the two-goal gap.

D. Kuemper saved 1.99 goals above expected for the Kings. F. Gustavsson saved 1.76 for Minnesota, yet the Wild still underperformed their 3.99 xG by 1.99 goals, squandering the high-danger chances the Kings generated more efficiently.

The Kings' quality edge was clear. They produced 0.074 expected goals per shot to Minnesota's 0.056. In high-danger situations, Los Angeles converted 3 of 7 chances (43%) and scored three times on 28 rush attempts. Minnesota, despite outshooting the Kings, found fewer truly dangerous looks.

Adrian Kempe's wrist shot from the top of the circles at 18:21 was the turning point.

The Kings' underlying advantage was slim—54% of expected goals to 46%—but their finishing discipline and Kuemper's stellar performance converted it into a decisive two-goal win.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 5
MIN
2
LAK
4

Kings hold off the Wild

Chances 4.0 – 4.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
MIN
3.99
LAK
4.76
46% of the chances54%

The board read MIN 2, LAK 4. The chances read MIN 4.0, LAK 4.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−0.8
goals above expected
LAK4.76 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
MIN3.99 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Wild left 2.0 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. P2 15:34LAKW. Foegele0–1
  2. P2 17:52LAKK. Fiala0–2
  3. P3 05:55MINJ. Spurgeon1–2
  4. P3 09:20LAKA. Kuzmenko1–3
  5. P3 15:21MINR. HartmanPP2–3
  6. P3 18:21LAKA. KempeEN2–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
MIN
52 shots
2
Final
97 shots
LAK
45 shots
4
MIN attackLAK attack
MIN LAK Goal
52
shots · 2 in
45
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
MINLAK
1 / 5
0.98 xG
High danger
3 / 7
2.21 xG
0 / 20
2.27 xG
Medium
0 / 17
1.96 xG
1 / 46
0.74 xG
Low
1 / 40
0.59 xG

The Kings buried 3 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Kuemper
+2.0
LAK · 33/35
A
F. Gustavsson
+1.8
MIN · 29/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings hold off the Wild

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 10–7no goals
    2ndshots 8–16
    1. 15:34LAKW. Foegele(B. Dumoulin, J. Malott)0–1
    2. 17:52LAKK. Fiala(A. Kuzmenko, A. Turcotte)0–2
    3rdshots 17–10
    1. 05:55MINJ. Spurgeon(J. Brodin, N. Sturm)1–2
    2. 09:20LAKA. Kuzmenko(B. Dumoulin)1–3
    3. 15:21MINR. Hartmanpower play(J. Spurgeon, B. Faber)2–3
    4. 18:21LAKA. Kempeempty net(A. Laferriere, Q. Byfield)2–4

    score reads MIN–LAK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.76
    LAK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.034
    LAK puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    47.4%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.99Expected goals4.76
    LAK 54% of the chance quality
    35Shots on goal33
    5High-danger chances7
    71All attempts (Corsi)64
    Adjusted for score: MIN 55% · LAK 45%
    Faceoffs · LAK won38%off57%neu69%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    MIN1 / 5 · 0.98 xG
    LAK3 / 7 · 2.21 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    MIN0 / 20 · 2.27 xG
    LAK0 / 17 · 1.96 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    MIN1 / 46 · 0.74 xG
    LAK1 / 40 · 0.59 xG

    MIN went 0-for-20 from medium danger on 2.27 expected goals — 2.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    MIN
    2 G · 3.99 xG · -2.0
    LAK
    4 G · 4.76 xG · -0.8
    0123456

    MIN finished -2.0 against expected, LAK -0.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    MIN
    WRIST1/34
    TIP IN0/9
    SLAP1/2
    BACKHAND0/5
    SNAP0/1
    POKE0/1
    OTHER0/19
    LAK
    WRIST2/28
    TIP IN1/4
    SLAP1/7
    BACKHAND0/1
    SNAP0/5
    POKE0/0
    OTHER0/19
    MIN
    LAK
    Off the rush
    0 G on 31
    2.49 xG
    3 G on 28
    3.11 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 7
    1.05 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.71 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: MIN went 1-for-34, LAK 2-for-28. 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
    F. Gustavsson
    MIN · 29/32 · .906
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger3/72.2-0.8
    Medium0/172.0+2.0
    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

    D. Kuemper
    LAK · 33/35 · .943
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.0-0.0
    Medium0/202.3+2.3
    Low1/460.7-0.3

    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

    97 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    MIN
    52 shots
    2
    Final
    97 shots
    LAK
    45 shots
    4
    MIN attackLAK attack
    MIN LAK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — MIN 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
    J. Spurgeon
    #46 · D · MIN
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:29 on ice
    B. Dumoulin
    #2 · D · LAK
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:20 on ice · +2
    A. Kuzmenko
    #96 · L · LAK
    1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 13:33 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Jan 5
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:18 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 Minnesota at 2.4–2.5 Los Angeles with the Kings at 53% win probability. That three-point edge is barely a lean.

    Minnesota's been hotter: 6-1-3 over their last 10, while Los Angeles has sagged to -6 goal differential in the same stretch. Yet the full 5v5 picture resists a clean reading. Both teams sit at 52.0% expected goals percentage, meaning they generate chances at nearly identical rates. Los Angeles, though, owns 52.0% Corsi to Minnesota's 48.0%—they're generating more shot attempts and will likely dominate puck possession. Volume doesn't guarantee goals, but it does dictate positioning and limits an opponent's access to quality looks.

    Neither team is running on luck. Minnesota's 1.007 PDO and Los Angeles's 1.002 are virtually matched, so no goaltender is overperforming and no team is beating itself through soft chances.

    Goaltending does present uncertainty: both D. Kuemper and J. Wallstedt are on back-to-back nights, which could trigger backup appearances or tired starters.

    Minnesota's offensive case centers on Matt Boldy, who produces 0.89 xG per 60 while carrying 22 goals and 18 assists. He's posted 5 high-danger chances at 13.7% conversion—elite efficiency that reflects both opportunity and execution. Robby Fabbri, at 0.88 xG/60, is likely unavailable, which thins Minnesota's secondary scoring.

    Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere at 0.87 xG/60, backed by 16 goals and 18 assists. He's generated 2 high-danger chances but converts only at 9.9%, a below-average clip that leaves room for either sharp correction or sustained underperformance. Jared Wright runs at 0.83 xG/60 with 0 goals and 4 assists—a distributor, not a finisher.

    Defensively, Matt Kiersted (Minnesota) and Adrian Kempe (Los Angeles) warrant watching.

    The pivot: Los Angeles controls play through volume, boxing Minnesota out. Minnesota's angle runs through transition speed and Boldy's punch in limited space. At 53 percent, the model sees this as genuinely uncertain—neither team has built enough advantage to claim the edge.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 53%
    53%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    MIN50LAK

    LAK by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score MIN 2.4–2.5 LAK; 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
    MIN← edge
    edge →LAK
    52.0%52.0%
    48.0%52.0%
    2.552.42
    2.402.20
    2.041.85
    1.931.71
    1.0071.002

    LAK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.007 vs 1.002) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    MIN
    6-1-3
    +11 GD · 1d rest
    LAK
    3-6-1
    -6 GD · 1d rest
    1.007
    MIN PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.002
    LAK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • J. Wallstedt is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Wild are the hotter team by points pace (6-1-3 in their last 10).
    • The Kings are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    MIN
    Expected in goal
    J. Wallstedt
    back-to-back.921 last start
    Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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.

    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    back-to-back.857 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.

    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
    MIN
    Matt Boldy22G 18A
    0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
    Robby Fabbri2G 3A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% 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