Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater

Breakdown · LAK at CBJ

Kings edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

Final / OTMon, Mar 9

LAKLos Angeles Kings5 CBJColumbus Blue Jackets4

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 5 · CBJ 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:18 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 Kings' 5-4 overtime win over the Blue Jackets looked closer than it actually was. Los Angeles dominated the underlying play at 5v5, controlling 59% of expected goals (3.74 to 2.59), yet the game required overtime and a goal by Adrian Kempe at 02:34 to decide.

The shot distribution masked the real disparity. Columbus held 51% of shot attempts (32 to 31), but their chances weren't dangerous—they generated only 2 high-danger opportunities to Los Angeles' 6. The Kings converted on the opportunities that mattered: they scored 2 goals from low-danger situations, situations that opposing goalies are supposed to stop.

Both teams outscored their expected performance. Columbus exceeded their xG by 1.41 goals; Los Angeles by 1.26. Neither goalie was blameless. A. Forsberg (LAK) yielded 28 saves on 32 shots (0.875 SV%), underperforming his xG-based expectation. J. Greaves (CBJ) posted 26 saves on 31 shots (0.839 SV%), similarly underwater. The difference: Los Angeles' goalie faced fewer high-danger chances and made the crucial stop when it mattered most.

Both teams excelled on the rush. Columbus scored 3 goals on 20 rush chances; Los Angeles 4 on 25. Los Angeles also crashed the net effectively, generating 3 rebound opportunities and converting 1. The game hinged on execution in transition and around the crease—where the Kings' superior chance quality ultimately showed.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Mar 9

LAK

CBJ

Kings edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

Chances 3.7 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

3.74

CBJ

2.59

59% of the chances41%

The board read LAK 5, CBJ 4. The chances read LAK 3.7, CBJ 2.6.

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

Luck check

LAK

+1.3

goals above expected

LAK3.74 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

CBJ2.59 expected · 4 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 06:46LAKS. Laughton1–0
P1 14:48LAKA. Panarin2–0
P1 17:35CBJC. Garland2–1
P2 10:53CBJD. Mateychuk2–2
P2 12:13CBJC. Garland2–3
P2 14:09LAKA. Kempe3–3
P3 10:07LAKB. Dumoulin4–3

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

LAK

49 shots

Final

91 shots

CBJ

42 shots

LAK CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKCBJ

2 / 6

1.45 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.45 xG

1 / 13

1.39 xG

Medium

3 / 15

1.56 xG

2 / 48

0.90 xG

Low

1 / 39

0.59 xG

The Kings buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

D-

J. Greaves

−1.3

CBJ · 26/31

D-

A. Forsberg

−1.4

LAK · 28/32

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kings edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

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 7–17

06:46LAKS. Laughton(B. Dumoulin, A. Turcotte)1–0
14:48LAKA. Panarin(S. Helenius)2–0
17:35CBJC. Garland(S. Monahan, I. Provorov)2–1

2ndshots 13–6

10:53CBJD. Mateychuk(I. Lundeström, B. Jenner)2–2
12:13CBJC. Garland(D. Mateychuk)2–3
14:09LAKA. Kempe(A. Kopitar, B. Dumoulin)3–3

3rdshots 9–9

10:07LAKB. Dumoulin(M. Anderson, S. Laughton)4–3
18:04CBJK. Marchenkopower play(Z. Werenski, C. Coyle)4–4

OTshots 2–0

02:34LAKA. Kempe(A. Panarin, D. Doughty)5–4

score reads LAK–CBJ

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.74

LAK chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.003

LAK puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

54.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.74Expected goals2.59

LAK 59% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal32

6High-danger chances2

67All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: LAK 53% · CBJ 47%

Faceoffs · CBJ won39%off30%neu33%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK2 / 6 · 1.45 xG

CBJ0 / 2 · 0.45 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK1 / 13 · 1.39 xG

CBJ3 / 15 · 1.56 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK2 / 48 · 0.90 xG

CBJ1 / 39 · 0.59 xG

CBJ went 3-for-15 from medium danger on 1.56 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

5 G · 3.74 xG · +1.3

CBJ

4 G · 2.59 xG · +1.4

0123456

LAK finished +1.3 against expected, CBJ +1.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

WRIST1/16

SLAP1/12

SNAP3/13

TIP IN0/5

DEFLECTED0/2

BACKHAND0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/18

CBJ

WRIST1/15

SLAP0/13

SNAP2/8

TIP IN0/4

DEFLECTED0/0

BACKHAND1/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/14

LAK

CBJ

Off the rush

4 G on 25

2.16 xG

3 G on 20

1.33 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.63 xG

0 G on 2

0.35 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-16, CBJ 1-for-15. 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

A. Forsberg

LAK · 28/32 · .875

-1.4

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium3/151.6-1.4

Low1/390.6-0.4

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

J. Greaves

CBJ · 26/31 · .839

-1.3

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/61.4-0.6

Medium1/131.4+0.4

Low2/480.9-1.1

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

91 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

49 shots

Final

91 shots

CBJ

42 shots

LAK CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

B. Dumoulin

#2 · D · LAK

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:12 on ice · +3

A. Panarin

#10 · L · LAK

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:19 on ice · +3

A. Kempe

#9 · R · LAK

2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 21:02 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Mar 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:16 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 game is a genuine coin flip. The model projects a 2.4–2.5 final with the Blue Jackets at 52% win probability—pick'em odds in statistical terms.

What separates them is timing. Columbus is 7-1-2 over its last ten games, riding momentum. Los Angeles is -13 in goal differential over the same stretch, meaning it's underperformed even its recent results. The model calls it even, but the Blue Jackets have the form advantage.

The underlying five-on-five play argues against it. Both teams have identical 52.0% expected goals shares—indistinguishable shot quality. Corsi splits slightly favor LA at 52.0% versus Columbus's 51.0%. PDO places LA at 1.002 and Columbus at 1.003, suggesting neither team has been lucky or unlucky.

Goaltending adds risk. Both E. Merzlikins and D. Kuemper are on back-to-backs, inviting either tired starters or backup deployments.

The Kings center on Alex Laferriere, who generates 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes. He's collected 16 goals and 18 assists across 2 high-danger conversions at 9.9% shooting. Jared Wright operates at 0.83 xG/60 with 0 goals on 4 assists. Columbus's answer is Boone Jenner at 0.98 xG/60—11 goals, 21 assists, 2 high-danger goals, 9.6% shooting. Mathieu Olivier contributes 0.89 xG/60, 12 goals, 9 assists, 1 high-danger goal, 13.3% shooting.

Adrian Kempe is LA's defensive weak point. Conor Garland is Columbus's. Both teams recorded 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate this season—a statistical impossibility suggesting either bookkeeping error or extreme small-sample noise.

Take the Blue Jackets only if recent hot play overrides underlying talent.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 52%

52%

CBJ

Model favorite

48%

52%

LAK50CBJ

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

52.0%52.0%

52.0%51.0%

2.422.63

2.202.43

1.852.12

1.711.98

1.0021.003

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.003) says CBJ has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

LAK

3-6-1

-13 GD · 1d rest

CBJ

7-1-2

+11 GD · 1d rest

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

CBJ PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

E. Merzlikins is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Blue Jackets are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
The Kings are underwater at -13 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.826 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.

CBJ

Expected in goal

E. Merzlikins

back-to-back.800 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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

CBJ

Boone Jenner11G 21A

0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh

Mathieu Olivier12G 9A

0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page