Backcheck
Recap · LAK at CBJ

Kings edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 12, 6:18 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
LAK
Los Angeles Kings
5
Home
CBJ
Columbus Blue Jackets
4
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.74Expected goals2.59
59% share for the better side
31Shot attempts (SOG)32
6High-danger chances2
67Corsi (all attempts)56
Score-adjusted: 53% / 47%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
A. ForsbergLAK
-1.4
J. GreavesCBJ
-1.3

LAK finished +1.3 against expected, CBJ +1.4 — A. Forsberg (LAK) allowed 1.4 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
B. Dumoulin
#2 · D · LAK
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:12 TOI · +3
A. Panarin
#10 · L · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:19 TOI · +3
A. Kempe
#9 · R · LAK
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 21:02 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • CBJ had the shot volume but the chances weren't dangerous.
  • A. Forsberg (LAK) gave up 1.4 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • LAK scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • CBJ was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 20 rush chances.
  • LAK was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 25 rush chances.
  • LAK created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · LAK at CBJ · 4:00 PM ET

Kings at Blue Jackets: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 6:16 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
CBJ
Model favorite
48%
52%
LAK50CBJ

CBJ by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.42.5 CBJ; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

LAK← edge
edge →CBJ
52.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
52.0%Corsi%51.0%
2.42xGF / 602.63
2.20xGA / 602.43
1.85Goals for / gm2.12
1.71Goals against / gm1.98
1.002PDO — luck, not skill1.003

The season numbers split 33 — no clear process edge — and PDO (1.002 vs 1.003) says CBJ has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters