Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater

Breakdown · LAK at EDM

Kings edge the Oilers in a shootout

Final / OTSat, Jan 10

LAKLos Angeles Kings4 EDMEdmonton Oilers3

The verdict · stolen

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.12–3.43 and won anyway.

LAK 4 · EDM 3

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:13 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

Edmonton had the cleaner underlying game—3.43 expected goals versus 3.12, with more dangerous chances (6–4) and more shots (30–26)—but walked out of this one down by a goal. The Oilers generated far more quality per shot (0.066 xG/shot to 0.047), yet couldn't finish, going 0–6 on high-danger chances. Sometimes depth doesn't convert; this was one of those nights.

A. Forsberg (LAK) surrendered 3 goals on 26 shots (0.885 SV%) but was perfect when it mattered most—100% save rate on high-danger chances. C. Ingram (EDM) made 27 of 30 (0.900 SV%), the steadier performance, which made the shootout all the more stinging. Adrian Kempe's snap shot from the doorstep decided it.

Both teams found their teeth on the rush. The Oilers scored 2 goals on 33 rush chances; the Kings matched it with 2 on 30—a rare efficiency tie that locked the game until the shootout dissolved it.

Three Stars

E. Bouchard (EDM) — 2A in 30:36
L. Draisaitl (EDM) — 2G in 27:27
B. Clarke (LAK) — 2A in 17:31

The Kings overperformed their expected goals by 0.88. In a game this close on the underlying numbers, variance picked a side. LA took it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · SO · Jan 10

LAK

EDM

Kings edge the Oilers in a shootout

Chances 3.1 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Kings took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

3.12

EDM

3.43

48% of the chances52%

The board read LAK 4, EDM 3. The chances read LAK 3.1, EDM 3.4.

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

Luck check

LAK

+0.9

goals above expected

LAK3.12 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

EDM3.43 expected · 3 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 09:12EDML. Draisaitl0–1
P1 17:50LAKC. PerryPP1–1
P2 01:07EDML. Draisaitl1–2
P2 03:42LAKA. Lee2–2
P3 06:21LAKA. Laferriere3–2
P3 09:20EDMC. McDavidPP3–3
SO 00:00LAKA. KempePP3–3

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

Where the shots came from

LAK

47 shots

Final

89 shots

EDM

42 shots

LAK EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKEDM

1 / 4

0.93 xG

High danger

0 / 6

1.47 xG

1 / 15

1.60 xG

Medium

3 / 12

1.35 xG

1 / 47

0.58 xG

Low

0 / 34

0.62 xG

The Oilers went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

A. Forsberg

+0.4

LAK · 23/26

C. Ingram

+0.1

EDM · 27/30

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kings edge the Oilers in a shootout

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 7–6

09:12EDML. Draisaitl(K. Kapanen)0–1
17:50LAKC. Perrypower play(B. Clarke, A. Kuzmenko)1–1

2ndshots 12–10

01:07EDML. Draisaitl(E. Bouchard)1–2
03:42LAKA. Lee(Q. Byfield, T. Ward)2–2

3rdshots 11–5

06:21LAKA. Laferriere(B. Clarke, A. Kempe)3–2
09:20EDMC. McDavidpower play(R. Nugent-Hopkins, E. Bouchard)3–3

OTshots 0–5no goals

00:00LAKA. Kempepower play3–3

score reads LAK–EDM

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.12

LAK chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.9

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

0.988

LAK puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

55.9%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.12Expected goals3.43

EDM 52% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal26

4High-danger chances6

66All attempts (Corsi)52

Adjusted for score: LAK 57% · EDM 43%

Faceoffs · EDM won47%off63%neu52%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

EDM0 / 6 · 1.47 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK1 / 15 · 1.60 xG

EDM3 / 12 · 1.35 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK1 / 47 · 0.58 xG

EDM0 / 34 · 0.62 xG

EDM went 3-for-12 from medium danger on 1.35 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

4 G · 3.12 xG · +0.9

EDM

3 G · 3.43 xG · -0.4

012345

LAK finished +0.9 against expected, EDM -0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

WRIST1/25

SNAP0/7

SLAP0/4

TIP IN2/4

BACKHAND0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/21

EDM

WRIST2/28

SNAP0/2

SLAP1/3

TIP IN0/2

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/13

LAK

EDM

Off the rush

2 G on 30

2.35 xG

2 G on 33

3.20 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.34 xG

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-25, EDM 2-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 · 23/26 · .885

+0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.5+1.5

Medium3/121.4-1.6

Low0/340.6+0.6

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

C. Ingram

EDM · 27/30 · .900

+0.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium1/151.6+0.6

Low1/470.6-0.4

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

47 shots

Final

89 shots

EDM

42 shots

LAK EDM GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

E. Bouchard

#2 · D · EDM

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 30:36 on ice · +1

L. Draisaitl

#29 · C · EDM

2 G · 0 A · 8 SOG · 27:27 on ice · +2

B. Clarke

#92 · D · LAK

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 17:31 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 10

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:13 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

This is a pick'em dressed as a game. The model projects a LAK 2.4-2.5 EDM matchup with the Oilers at 52% win probability—which is to say, barely. Both teams generate identical shot quality at 52% xG%, but the Kings hold a possession edge: 52.0% Corsi% to Edmonton's 50.0%. The Oilers' apparent advantage is thinner than it looks.

The Kings are running hot. Their PDO of 1.002 reflects favorable bounce—better finishing and/or goaltending luck—while Edmonton's 0.982 is the inverse: a team running cold, mathematically due for positive regression. If the Oilers regress toward their underlying numbers, their edge collapses.

LAK's possession advantage could amplify into wins. Alex Laferriere has produced 16 goals and 18 assists on 0.87 xG/60 at a 9.9% shooting rate. Jared Wright generates similarly at 0.83 xG/60 but hasn't finished: 0 goals and 4 assists.

Edmonton counters with elite scoring. Connor McDavid carries 25 goals and 33 assists with 0.92 xG/60, numbers that rate as mundane by his standard but remain lethal. Zach Hyman is the team's more prolific expected producer at 1.23 xG/60—paired with 14 goals and 13 assists at a 13.0% shooting rate that mirrors Laferriere's efficiency.

The Oilers' back-to-back introduces risk. C. Pickard may sit out or take the ice fatigued, adding variance to an equation that is already too tight to resolve. Defensively, Adrian Kempe represents LAK's weak link; Jake Walman is Edmonton's. In a game this close, one mistake tips the scale.

The data won't break this tie: two rosters separated by recent luck and rest. Treat the 52% as what it is—a coin flip with a slight lean.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

EDM 52%

52%

EDM

Model favorite

48%

52%

LAK50EDM

EDM by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.4–2.5 EDM; 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 →EDM

52.0%52.0%

52.0%50.0%

2.422.64

2.202.47

1.852.13

1.712.29

1.0020.982

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.982) 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 · 2d rest

EDM

6-4-0

+3 GD · 1d rest

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.982

EDM PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

C. Pickard is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

LAK

Expected in goal

D. Kuemper

2 days rest.857 last start

Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

EDM

Expected in goal

C. Pickard

back-to-back.813 last start

Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 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

EDM

Zach Hyman14G 13A

1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh

Connor McDavid25G 33A

0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page