Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Winnipeg Jets sweater
← Fri, Jan 9 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at WPG

E. Comrie stands tall as the Jets edge the Kings

FinalFri, Jan 9
LAKLos Angeles Kings1WPGWinnipeg Jets5
The verdict · stolen

The Jets stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.60–2.89 and won anyway.

LAK 1 · WPG 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:01 AMxG: 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 Jets beat the Kings 5-1 despite being massively outplayed. The Kings controlled 61% of expected goals at 5v5 — this game was a heist.

The Jets' xG (2.89) said they had no business winning by four. They held just 39% of expected goals and faced 9 high-danger chances to 4 of their own. They should have lost. Instead, they won decisively—two reasons: E. Comrie stole the game in net, and the Jets were lethal on the rush.

E. Comrie stopped 23 of 24 shots and saved 3.60 goals above expected, elite goaltending that erased the xG deficit. D. Kuemper gave up 2.69 goals more than expected (11/16 saves, 0.688 SV%). A. Forsberg (4/4) saw minimal work but was sharp. The goaltending split was decisive.

The Jets scored 2 goals from low-danger spots—bounces that should favor neither team but benefited Winnipeg. They were lethal off the rush, converting 4 of 19 rush chances into goals. The Kings created 8 rebound opportunities but couldn't finish.

Mark Scheifele's slap shot from the high slot in the second period set the tone.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 9
LAK
1
WPG
5

E. Comrie stands tall as the Jets edge the Kings

Chances 4.6 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
4.60
WPG
2.89
61% of the chances39%

The board read LAK 1, WPG 5. The chances read LAK 4.6, WPG 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WPG
+2.1
goals above expected
WPG2.89 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK4.60 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets scored 2.1 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 01:31WPGV. Namestnikov0–1
  2. P1 18:05WPGC. Koepke0–2
  3. P2 02:07WPGJ. Toews0–3
  4. P2 09:32LAKQ. Byfield1–3
  5. P2 12:35WPGM. ScheifelePP1–4
  6. P2 19:17WPGM. Scheifele1–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
56 shots
1
Final
90 shots
WPG
34 shots
5
LAK attackWPG attack
LAK WPG Goal
56
shots · 1 in
34
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKWPG
1 / 9
1.98 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.22 xG
0 / 15
1.73 xG
Medium
2 / 11
1.22 xG
0 / 57
0.89 xG
Low
2 / 33
0.45 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 1 of 9, WPG 1 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
E. Comrie
+3.6
WPG · 23/24
A+
A. Forsberg
+2.9
LAK · 4/4
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

E. Comrie stands tall as the Jets edge 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 5–9
  1. 01:31WPGV. Namestnikov(L. Stanley, N. Niederreiter)0–1
  2. 18:05WPGC. Koepke(D. Samberg, T. Pearson)0–2
2ndshots 7–7
  1. 02:07WPGJ. Toews(C. Miller, C. Perfetti)0–3
  2. 09:32LAKQ. Byfield(T. Ward, W. Foegele)1–3
  3. 12:35WPGM. Scheifelepower play(K. Connor, G. Vilardi)1–4
  4. 19:17WPGM. Scheifele(C. Perfetti, G. Vilardi)1–5
3rdshots 12–4no goals

    score reads LAK–WPG

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.89
    WPG chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.092
    WPG puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    37.2%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.60Expected goals2.89
    LAK 61% of the chance quality
    24Shots on goal20
    9High-danger chances4
    81All attempts (Corsi)48
    Adjusted for score: LAK 69% · WPG 31%
    Faceoffs · WPG won40%off40%neu48%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    LAK1 / 9 · 1.98 xG
    WPG1 / 4 · 1.22 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    LAK0 / 15 · 1.73 xG
    WPG2 / 11 · 1.22 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    LAK0 / 57 · 0.89 xG
    WPG2 / 33 · 0.45 xG

    LAK went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.73 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    LAK
    1 G · 4.60 xG · -3.6
    WPG
    5 G · 2.89 xG · +2.1
    0123456

    LAK finished -3.6 against expected, WPG +2.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    LAK
    WRIST0/32
    SLAP0/10
    TIP IN0/8
    SNAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED1/1
    BAT0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/25
    WPG
    WRIST2/19
    SLAP2/7
    TIP IN1/2
    SNAP0/2
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/14
    LAK
    WPG
    Off the rush
    1 G on 33
    3.06 xG
    4 G on 19
    1.91 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 8
    1.16 xG
    1 G on 2
    0.62 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 0-for-32, WPG 2-for-19. WPG 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
    A. Forsberg
    LAK · 4/4 · 1.000
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/41.2+0.2
    Medium2/111.2-0.8
    Low2/330.5-1.6

    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. Kuemper
    LAK · 11/16 · .688
    -2.1
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/41.2+0.2
    Medium2/111.2-0.8
    Low2/330.5-1.6

    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

    E. Comrie
    WPG · 23/24 · .958
    +3.6
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/92.0+1.0
    Medium0/151.7+1.7
    Low0/570.9+0.9

    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
    56 shots
    1
    Final
    90 shots
    WPG
    34 shots
    5
    LAK attackWPG attack
    LAK WPG Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, WPG 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
    M. Scheifele
    #55 · C · WPG
    2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 20:21 on ice · +1
    G. Vilardi
    #13 · C · WPG
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:33 on ice · +1
    C. Perfetti
    #91 · C · WPG
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 12:46 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Jan 9
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:00 AMEdited 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's 52% win probability for Los Angeles barely tilts toward a Kings victory—this is a genuine pick'em, with a projected 2.5-2.4 scoring line that captures how marginal the edge truly is.

    Recent form favors LA. The Kings are 4-5-1 over their last ten, outpacing Winnipeg, which has managed only a -12 goal differential in the same span. Form alone doesn't settle matchups, but trajectory matters.

    The underlying numbers reveal where LA's advantage actually sits. At 5v5, the Kings control 52.0% expected goals to Winnipeg's 48.0%, and they're driving territorial play at 52.0% Corsi against 49.0%. That's not domination—it's persistent control. PDO tells you luck isn't distorting the picture much: LAK sits at 1.002, WPG at 0.998. Both teams are running close to how their play should be converting.

    The goaltending uncertainty cuts both ways. D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back, so Winnipeg's offense might face a backup or a starter running on fumes—either scenario favors the team taking advantage of early offensive chances.

    Watch Alex Laferriere and Kyle Connor as the contest's key tensions. Laferriere generates 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes and has converted at 9.9%, sitting at 16G 18A with 2 high-danger goals. He's efficient without being prolific. Connor operates at the same 0.83 xG/60 as Jared Wright but with vastly more volume: 25G 30A, 13.0% shooting, 2 high-danger goals. He's the most dangerous scorer on the ice.

    Nino Niederreiter bridges the two—0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 high-danger goals at 8.6% shooting. He's dangerous per minute even if his goal total remains modest. Jared Wright's 0G 4A on 0.83 xG/60 suggests a player creating looks without finishing; Winnipeg's depth will be tested if he stays cold.

    Adrian Kempe and Colin Miller are defensive mismatches worth hunting, but this game will likely turn on which team converts its marginal possession advantage into early goals. Winnipeg's deeper slump makes that harder to count on.

    This is a skip-the-tape bet. The model says heads, but the coin is honest.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 52%
    52%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    LAK50WPG

    LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.4 WPG; 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 →WPG
    52.0%48.0%
    52.0%49.0%
    2.422.34
    2.202.55
    1.851.90
    1.712.10
    1.0020.998

    LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.998) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    LAK
    4-5-1
    -1 GD · 1d rest
    WPG
    0-6-4
    -12 GD · 2d rest
    1.002
    LAK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    WPG 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 48.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • 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.
    • The Kings are the hotter team by points pace (4-5-1 in their last 10).
    • The Jets are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    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.

    WPG
    Expected in goal
    C. Hellebuyck
    2 days rest.871 last start
    Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 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
    WPG
    Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
    0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
    Kyle Connor25G 30A
    0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page