Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
Breakdown · LAK at BUF

A. Lyon stands tall as the Sabres edge the Kings

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 1 · BUF 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:57 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

Buffalo's 4-1 victory over Los Angeles looks decisive. The underlying metrics reveal a tighter contest — expected goals favored the Sabres just 3.91–3.51, and high-danger chances were perfectly even at 4–4. The scoreline masked how vulnerable the Kings actually were.

The difference came down to execution and goaltending. The Kings generated quality chances but could not finish, underperforming their expected goals by 2.51. A. Lyon, meanwhile, posted a 0.974 save percentage and stopped 2.51 goals above expected — the goaltending equivalent of stealing a game. The Sabres, by contrast, generated fewer but higher-value chances — 0.075 xG per shot versus Los Angeles' 0.052.

Alex Tuch's snap shot from the wing early in the third period (19:00) served as the turning point, capping a night in which he scored three goals in just 17:57 of ice time. J. Quinn registered three assists in 14:47, and R. McLeod added two helpers in 16:30. Buffalo's depth showed: multiple players generated offensive impact despite limited minutes.

Both teams crashed the net aggressively but futilely. Buffalo created three rebound opportunities and converted none; Los Angeles created seven and converted none. The Sabres simply got more out of their chances when it mattered most.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 29
LAK
1
BUF
4

A. Lyon stands tall as the Sabres edge the Kings

Chances 3.5 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Sabres earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
3.51
BUF
3.91
47% of the chances53%

The board read LAK 1, BUF 4. The chances read LAK 3.5, BUF 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
+0.1
goals above expected
BUF3.91 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK3.51 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings left 2.5 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. P1 07:14BUFA. TuchPP0–1
  2. P1 11:17BUFM. Samuelsson0–2
  3. P2 06:29BUFA. Tuch0–3
  4. P2 07:47LAKA. KempePP1–3
  5. P3 19:00BUFA. TuchEN1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
53 shots
1
Final
92 shots
BUF
39 shots
4
LAK attackBUF attack
LAK BUF Goal
53
shots · 1 in
39
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKBUF
0 / 4
0.96 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.75 xG
1 / 16
1.73 xG
Medium
2 / 17
1.78 xG
0 / 48
0.82 xG
Low
1 / 31
0.38 xG

The Kings went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Lyon
+2.5
BUF · 37/38
B+
D. Kuemper
+0.9
LAK · 28/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Lyon stands tall as the Sabres 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 12–8
  1. 07:14BUFA. Tuchpower play(R. McLeod, J. Quinn)0–1
  2. 11:17BUFM. Samuelsson(R. Dahlin, J. Quinn)0–2
2ndshots 19–14
  1. 06:29BUFA. Tuch(B. Byram, Z. Benson)0–3
  2. 07:47LAKA. Kempepower play(K. Fiala, B. Clarke)1–3
3rdshots 7–10
  1. 19:00BUFA. Tuchempty net(J. Quinn, R. McLeod)1–4

score reads LAK–BUF

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.91
BUF chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.062
BUF puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
43.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.51Expected goals3.91
BUF 53% of the chance quality
38Shots on goal32
4High-danger chances4
68All attempts (Corsi)52
Adjusted for score: LAK 63% · BUF 37%
Faceoffs · BUF won61%off47%neu76%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK0 / 4 · 0.96 xG
BUF1 / 4 · 1.75 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK1 / 16 · 1.73 xG
BUF2 / 17 · 1.78 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK0 / 48 · 0.82 xG
BUF1 / 31 · 0.38 xG

LAK went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.96 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
1 G · 3.51 xG · -2.5
BUF
4 G · 3.91 xG · +0.1
012345

LAK finished -2.5 against expected, BUF +0.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
SNAP0/20
WRIST0/8
TIP IN1/8
SLAP0/11
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/15
BUF
SNAP2/9
WRIST0/16
TIP IN1/7
SLAP1/3
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/13
LAK
BUF
Off the rush
1 G on 32
2.32 xG
1 G on 23
2.01 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7
0.65 xG
0 G on 3
0.74 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 0-for-20, BUF 2-for-9.

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
D. Kuemper
LAK · 28/31 · .903
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.8+0.8
Medium2/171.8-0.2
Low1/310.4-0.6

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

A. Lyon
BUF · 37/38 · .974
+2.5
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium1/161.7+0.7
Low0/480.8+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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
LAK
53 shots
1
Final
92 shots
BUF
39 shots
4
LAK attackBUF attack
LAK BUF Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, BUF 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
A. Tuch
#89 · R · BUF
3 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 17:57 on ice · +2
J. Quinn
#22 · R · BUF
0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 14:47 on ice · +2
R. McLeod
#71 · C · BUF
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:30 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 29
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:56 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 projects a 2.5–2.5 game with Buffalo at 50% win probability. You won't find a tighter pregame prediction than this.

The supporting numbers explain why. Los Angeles drives 52.0% Corsi and 52.0% expected goals—a genuine territorial advantage that translates to shot volume and quality chances. Buffalo counters with 50.0% xG, suggesting they'll generate offensive looks despite spending more time in their own zone. By five-on-five metrics, this is balanced hockey played on Los Angeles' terms.

Here's where the edges live: Buffalo's PDO sits at 1.020, meaning the Sabres are running hot on goaltending and finishing. Some regression feels inevitable. Los Angeles, meanwhile, trades the PDO advantage (1.002) for territorial control—the kind of advantage that compounds over 60 minutes. The Kings' recent form tells a different story, though. They're minus-5 in goal differential over their last 10, suggesting their underlying structure hasn't translated to results yet.

Goaltending uncertainty sharpens this picture. C. Ellis faces a back-to-back situation, and A. Forsberg does as well. Either team could deploy a backup or see a fatigued starter between the pipes—a variable that can swallow thin margins in a coin flip.

The individual matchups narrow the field. Alex Laferriere drives the Kings attack at 0.87 xG per 60 with 16 goals and 18 assists; he's converting at 9.9%, well above expectation, and has generated 2 high-danger chances. Jason Zucker is Buffalo's most dangerous finisher—1.07 xG/60, 14 goals, 14 assists, 6 high-danger goals, and a 15.1% shooting percentage that signals both skill and luck. Josh Doan offers secondary depth at 1.01 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists across 2 high-danger chances. Neither team can afford to lose focus on these three.

For Los Angeles, Jared Wright is worth monitoring: 0.83 xG per 60 and 4 assists with 0 goals. He's generating offense without finishing, a sign of either pending regression to the mean or a role that will demand adjustment if the Kings need goals. Buffalo's defensive responsibility falls on Jack Quinn; for Los Angeles, Adrian Kempe carries that burden.

This is a coin flip because both teams project to play solid hockey without obvious structural cracks. Buffalo has the hot hand; Los Angeles has the territorial edge. One will regress, one will hold. Which team—and which goaltender—makes the sharper adjustment to the moment will likely decide it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 50%
50%
BUF
Model favorite
50%
50%
LAK50BUF

BUF by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.5 BUF; 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 →BUF
52.0%50.0%
52.0%49.0%
2.422.55
2.202.55
1.852.35
1.711.90
1.0021.020

LAK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 1.020) says BUF 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 · 1d rest
BUF
7-2-1
+16 GD · 1d rest
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.020
BUF PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • C. Ellis is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • A. Forsberg is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Kings are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
LAK
Expected in goal
A. Forsberg
back-to-back.964 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.

BUF
Expected in goal
C. Ellis
back-to-back.889 last start
Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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
BUF
Jason Zucker14G 14A
1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh
Josh Doan15G 18A
1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% sh
Keep going

Where to next