Motion-blurred skater in a Seattle Kraken sweater

Breakdown · SEA at LAK

Kraken hold off the Kings

FinalWed, Feb 4

SEASeattle Kraken4 LAKLos Angeles Kings2

The verdict · coin flip

The Kraken won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

SEA 4 · LAK 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:13 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

Seattle outlasted Los Angeles in a game where underlying metrics suggested a near tie, yet the Kings never found the shooting efficiency to capitalize on their territorial edge. Los Angeles owned 54% of shot attempts, yet trailed throughout, revealing that quality over quantity determined the outcome.

The Kraken finished 2.67 expected goals to 2.57 — essentially even — but the Kings' shot profile told a different story. Seattle averaged 0.056 xG per shot versus Los Angeles's 0.040. That gap in dangerous looks cascaded across the game.

J. Daccord posted 25 saves on 27 shots (0.926 SV%), outperforming his expected save percentage by 0.57 goals. D. Kuemper faced 23 shots and yielded four, posting a 0.826 SV% nearly 1.33 goals worse than his model predicted — a stark miss on a lighter workload than the Kings' territorial dominance warranted.

Both teams exploited speed and special teams. Seattle converted 4 goals on 26 rush chances while Los Angeles managed 2 on 29 attempts. The Kings muscled 2 power-play goals on 12 shots (0.88 xG), but peak special-team execution couldn't offset their underlying finishing struggles.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 4

SEA

LAK

Kraken hold off the Kings

Chances 2.7 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Kraken took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

SEA

2.67

LAK

2.57

51% of the chances49%

The board read SEA 4, LAK 2. The chances read SEA 2.7, LAK 2.6.

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

Luck check

SEA

+1.3

goals above expected

SEA2.67 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK2.57 expected · 2 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 07:42LAKA. KuzmenkoPP0–1
P1 09:16SEAS. Wright1–1
P1 10:14SEAA. Larsson2–1
P1 15:21SEAV. DunnPP3–1
P2 10:27LAKA. KuzmenkoPP3–2
P3 05:50SEAS. WrightPP4–2

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

Where the shots came from

SEA

32 shots

Final

76 shots

LAK

44 shots

SEA LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SEALAK

0 / 1

0.22 xG

High danger

0 / 0

0.00 xG

4 / 16

1.93 xG

Medium

2 / 16

1.87 xG

0 / 31

0.52 xG

Low

0 / 48

0.70 xG

High-danger looks: SEA 0 of 1, LAK 0 of 0.

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

In the net

J. Daccord

+0.6

SEA · 25/27

D-

D. Kuemper

−1.3

LAK · 19/23

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kraken hold off 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 11–8

07:42LAKA. Kuzmenkopower play(B. Clarke, K. Fiala)0–1
09:16SEAS. Wright(R. Winterton)1–1
10:14SEAA. Larsson(C. Stephenson, F. Gaudreau)2–1
15:21SEAV. Dunnpower play(J. McCann, C. Stephenson)3–1

2ndshots 4–11

10:27LAKA. Kuzmenkopower play(A. Kempe, K. Fiala)3–2

3rdshots 8–8

05:50SEAS. Wrightpower play(F. Gaudreau, K. Kakko)4–2

score reads SEA–LAK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.67

SEA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.052

SEA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

42.9%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.67Expected goals2.57

SEA 51% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal27

1High-danger chances0

48All attempts (Corsi)64

Adjusted for score: SEA 38% · LAK 62%

Faceoffs · LAK won56%off61%neu54%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SEA0 / 1 · 0.22 xG

LAK0 / 0 · 0.00 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SEA4 / 16 · 1.93 xG

LAK2 / 16 · 1.87 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SEA0 / 31 · 0.52 xG

LAK0 / 48 · 0.70 xG

SEA went 4-for-16 from medium danger on 1.93 expected goals — 2.1 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SEA

4 G · 2.67 xG · +1.3

LAK

2 G · 2.57 xG · -0.6

012345

SEA finished +1.3 against expected, LAK -0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SEA

WRIST1/10

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/4

SNAP1/6

BACKHAND2/5

BAT0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/0

OTHER0/16

LAK

WRIST1/27

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/6

SNAP1/3

BACKHAND0/2

BAT0/0

WRAP AROUND0/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/20

SEA

LAK

Off the rush

4 G on 26

2.41 xG

2 G on 29

1.93 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.20 xG

0 G on 4

0.27 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: SEA went 1-for-10, LAK 1-for-27. SEA 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

J. Daccord

SEA · 25/27 · .926

+0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

Medium2/161.9-0.1

Low0/480.7+0.7

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

D. Kuemper

LAK · 19/23 · .826

-1.3

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/10.2+0.2

Medium4/161.9-2.1

Low0/310.5+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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SEA

32 shots

Final

76 shots

LAK

44 shots

SEA LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

C. Stephenson

#9 · C · SEA

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:23 on ice · +1

K. Fiala

#22 · L · LAK

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 20:23 on ice

F. Gaudreau

#89 · C · SEA

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 18:16 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Feb 4

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:12 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 favors Los Angeles in this matchup, projecting a 2.2–2.6 goal spread with the Kings at 57% win probability. The edge isn't close—it sits in the underlying play.

Los Angeles dominates the 5v5 chart. The Kings own 52.0% xG to Seattle's 46.0%, and that territorial advantage extends to possession: 52.0% Corsi against 45.0%. When one team sustains that kind of control across metrics, it typically manifests as shots on net and high-danger chances. The Kings drive the game in directions that matter.

Seattle's PDO of 1.011 suggests some unsustainable mixing—either efficiency that won't hold or penalty rates working sideways. Los Angeles sits at 1.002, closer to neutral, which means any edge in underlying play has room to translate.

The talent gap appears smallest at star forward. Shane Wright leads Seattle with 8 goals and 10 assists while generating 0.77 expected goals per 60 minutes; he's converted 4 high-danger chances at a 10.4% clip. Berkly Catton adds secondary scoring at a 0.68 xG/60 rate. Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere, who posts the draft's strongest individual edge: 0.87 xG/60 with 16 goals and 18 assists. Jared Wright, on the other hand, has registered just 4 assists on 0.83 xG/60—production lag relative to opportunity.

Seattle's defense shows structural concerns. The team has generated no high-danger or rebound goals, signaling both offensive-zone brittleness and puck-recovery issues. Chandler Stephenson carries defensive questions. Los Angeles faces its own efficiency puzzle: zero high-danger and zero rebound goals despite superior underlying play, suggesting either a depth-scoring void or goaltending playing above his chances. Adrian Kempe is flagged as a defensive liability.

The Kings' edge rests on sustained control of the game's high-leverage space. If the underlying play translates to goals, the 57% projection looks sound.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 57%

57%

LAK

Model favorite

43%

57%

SEA50LAK

LAK by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SEA 2.2–2.6 LAK; 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

SEA← edge

edge →LAK

46.0%52.0%

45.0%52.0%

2.132.42

2.512.20

1.871.85

1.951.71

1.0111.002

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 1.002) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

SEA

5-4-1

+2 GD · 3d rest

LAK

4-2-4

-4 GD · 3d rest

1.011

SEA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.002

LAK 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 46.0%.
The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

SEA

Expected in goal

J. Daccord

3 days rest.931 last start

Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

LAK

Expected in goal

A. Forsberg

3 days rest.912 last start

Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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

SEA

Shane Wright8G 10A

0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh

Berkly Catton6G 8A

0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page