Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Tue, Jan 27 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at DET

A. Forsberg stands tall as the Kings edge the Red Wings

FinalTue, Jan 27
LAKLos Angeles Kings3DETDetroit Red Wings1
The verdict · stolen

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.17–4.55 and won anyway.

LAK 3 · DET 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:50 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 beat the Red Wings 3-1 despite Detroit's dominance in underlying metrics: 56% of shot attempts, 8-2 in high-danger chances, and 4.55 expected goals to Los Angeles's 4.17.

A. Forsberg won the game. The Kings' goaltender made 27 of 28 shots (0.964 SV%), outperforming expectation by 3.55 goals—a performance that erased Detroit's expected-goal advantage and decided the result.

Detroit squandered their dominance. They created six rebound opportunities and converted zero, a void in high-danger finishing that wasted their territorial edge. J. Gibson (0.905 SV%, +2.17) performed well but couldn't rescue an offense that misfired. Los Angeles capitalized: two goals on 27 rush chances. Corey Perry's wrist shot from the high slot at 18:47 of the third was the clincher.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 27
LAK
3
DET
1

A. Forsberg stands tall as the Kings edge the Red Wings

Chances 4.2 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Red Wings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
4.17
DET
4.55
48% of the chances52%

The board read LAK 3, DET 1. The chances read LAK 4.2, DET 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−1.2
goals above expected
LAK4.17 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
DET4.55 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Red Wings left 3.5 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 10:00LAKS. Helenius1–0
  2. P3 06:46LAKA. KuzmenkoPP2–0
  3. P3 17:45DETA. DeBrincatPP2–1
  4. P3 18:47LAKC. PerryEN3–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
39 shots
3
Final
91 shots
DET
52 shots
1
LAK attackDET attack
LAK DET Goal
39
shots · 3 in
52
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKDET
1 / 2
1.20 xG
High danger
1 / 8
1.82 xG
2 / 21
2.51 xG
Medium
0 / 18
1.96 xG
0 / 33
0.46 xG
Low
0 / 43
0.77 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 1 of 2, DET 1 of 8.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Forsberg
+3.5
LAK · 27/28
A
J. Gibson
+2.2
DET · 19/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Forsberg stands tall as the Kings edge the Red Wings

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 9–5no goals
    2ndshots 8–5
    1. 10:00LAKS. Helenius(J. Malott)1–0
    3rdshots 5–18
    1. 06:46LAKA. Kuzmenkopower play(A. Kempe, K. Fiala)2–0
    2. 17:45DETA. DeBrincatpower play(M. Seider, P. Kane)2–1
    3. 18:47LAKC. Perryempty net(A. Laferriere)3–1

    score reads LAK–DET

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.17
    LAK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.2
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.039
    LAK puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    44.8%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.17Expected goals4.55
    DET 52% of the chance quality
    22Shots on goal28
    2High-danger chances8
    56All attempts (Corsi)69
    Adjusted for score: LAK 42% · DET 58%
    Faceoffs · DET won71%off62%neu70%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    LAK1 / 2 · 1.20 xG
    DET1 / 8 · 1.82 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    LAK2 / 21 · 2.51 xG
    DET0 / 18 · 1.96 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    LAK0 / 33 · 0.46 xG
    DET0 / 43 · 0.77 xG

    DET went 0-for-18 from medium danger on 1.96 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    LAK
    3 G · 4.17 xG · -1.2
    DET
    1 G · 4.55 xG · -3.5
    012345

    LAK finished -1.2 against expected, DET -3.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    LAK
    WRIST1/13
    SNAP2/14
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND0/3
    SLAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    POKE0/0
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/17
    DET
    WRIST1/19
    SNAP0/16
    TIP IN0/7
    BACKHAND0/4
    SLAP0/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    POKE0/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/17
    LAK
    DET
    Off the rush
    2 G on 27
    2.05 xG
    1 G on 33
    2.95 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.32 xG
    0 G on 6
    0.91 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-13, DET 1-for-19. 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 · 27/28 · .964
    +3.5
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/81.8+0.8
    Medium0/182.0+2.0
    Low0/430.8+0.8

    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. Gibson
    DET · 19/21 · .905
    +2.2
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/21.2+0.2
    Medium2/212.5+0.5
    Low0/330.5+0.5

    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
    39 shots
    3
    Final
    91 shots
    DET
    52 shots
    1
    LAK attackDET attack
    LAK DET Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, DET 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. Seider
    #53 · D · DET
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 26:41 on ice
    A. DeBrincat
    #93 · R · DET
    1 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 19:59 on ice
    A. Laferriere
    #14 · R · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 19:35 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Jan 27
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:08 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 calls this a pick'em: a 2.5-2.4 Kings projection with Los Angeles at 51% win probability. This is as close as it gets.

    Recent form contradicts this balance. Detroit arrives in momentum with an 8-1-1 record over their last 10 games. Los Angeles is struggling, posting a minus-5 goal differential over the same stretch.

    The underlying numbers support this equilibrium. The Kings dominate at even strength, owning 52.0% xG and 52.0% Corsi—the territorial control that typically predicts wins. Detroit's 0.985 PDO accompanies an 8-1-1 run. Los Angeles at 1.002 means results align with shot quality. The model has found balance.

    Both teams feature elite scorers at remarkably similar efficiency. Alex Laferriere drives Los Angeles at 0.87 xG/60 with 16 goals, 18 assists, and a 9.9% shooting rate. He's converted 2 high-danger chances. Jared Wright provides secondary offense at 0.83 xG/60, posting 0 goals and 4 assists this season.

    Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat at 0.88 xG/60, marginally more efficient. DeBrincat has 17 goals and 28 assists with 2 high-danger goals and a 9.0% shooting rate. Marco Kasper, developing at 0.81 xG/60, has 7 goals, 8 assists, and 1 high-danger marker at a 6.1% shooting rate.

    The Red Wings' 8-1-1 form is compelling. Los Angeles' possession dominance—both expected goals and puck possession—is the countervailing evidence. In matchups this balanced, execution and depth scoring determine outcomes. Detroit's recent results suggest they're capitalizing on chances. Los Angeles' 5v5 superiority implies they could match that efficiency if secondary production emerges.

    When the model sees a genuine coin flip, it usually is.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 51%
    51%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    LAK50DET

    LAK by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.4 DET; 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 →DET
    52.0%49.0%
    52.0%49.0%
    2.422.38
    2.202.50
    1.851.73
    1.712.07
    1.0020.985

    LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.985) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    LAK
    4-2-4
    -5 GD · 2d rest
    DET
    8-1-1
    +15 GD · 2d rest
    1.002
    LAK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.985
    DET 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 49.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Red Wings are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).
    • The Kings are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    2 days rest.862 last start
    Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    DET
    Expected in goal
    J. Gibson
    2 days rest.963 last start
    Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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
    DET
    Alex DeBrincat17G 28A
    0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh
    Marco Kasper7G 8A
    0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page