Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater

Breakdown · LAK at VGK

A. Hill stands tall as the Golden Knights edge the Kings

FinalThu, Feb 5

LAKLos Angeles Kings1 VGKVegas Golden Knights4

The verdict · stolen

The Golden Knights stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.28–3.12 and won anyway.

LAK 1 · VGK 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:22 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 Golden Knights beat the Kings 4-1 despite losing the xG battle. Los Angeles controlled 58% of expected goals at 5v5—the game should have been theirs—yet lost. Vegas won on goaltending.

A. Hill stopped 3.3 more goals than expected and stole the game, posting a 0.970 SV% on 33 attempts. His counterpart, A. Forsberg, allowed 0.88 goals above expected on 18 saves from 22 shots. One goalie locked the door; the other couldn't.

Vegas struck first. Trevor Moore's wrist shot from the slot at 15:03 of the first set the tone—the Golden Knights seized momentum and built a lead LA spent the rest of the night chasing and never caught.

The Knights held just 40% of shot attempts (22 to LA's 33), but goaltending mattered more than volume. High-danger chances tilted LA 6-5. The Kings generated seven rebound opportunities in the crease and converted none. Vegas's three rebound chances also went nowhere, but it didn't matter—A. Hill had already decided the game. By the third period, LA was playing for pride, not points.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 5

LAK

VGK

A. Hill stands tall as the Golden Knights edge the Kings

Chances 4.3 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Kings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

4.28

VGK

3.12

58% of the chances42%

The board read LAK 1, VGK 4. The chances read LAK 4.3, VGK 3.1.

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

Luck check

VGK

+0.9

goals above expected

VGK3.12 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK4.28 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Kings left 3.3 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 08:22VGKJ. Eichel0–1
P1 11:49VGKM. Stone0–2
P1 13:29VGKP. DorofeyevPP0–3
P1 13:49VGKM. Marner0–4
P1 15:03LAKT. Moore1–4

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

Where the shots came from

LAK

52 shots

Final

86 shots

VGK

34 shots

LAK VGK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKVGK

1 / 6

1.59 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.33 xG

0 / 14

1.79 xG

Medium

3 / 12

1.39 xG

0 / 53

0.90 xG

Low

0 / 29

0.40 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 1 of 6, VGK 1 of 5.

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

In the net

A+

A. Hill

+3.3

VGK · 32/33

D-

A. Forsberg

−0.9

LAK · 18/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

A. Hill stands tall as the Golden Knights 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 11–10

08:22VGKJ. Eichel(M. Stone, I. Barbashev)0–1
11:49VGKM. Stone(I. Barbashev, J. Eichel)0–2
13:29VGKP. Dorofeyevpower play(M. Stone, T. Hertl)0–3
13:49VGKM. Marner(P. Dorofeyev)0–4
15:03LAKT. Moore(J. Armia, A. Kopitar)1–4

2ndshots 10–5no goals

3rdshots 12–7no goals

score reads LAK–VGK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.12

VGK chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.9

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.073

VGK puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

38.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.28Expected goals3.12

LAK 58% of the chance quality

33Shots on goal22

6High-danger chances5

73All attempts (Corsi)46

Adjusted for score: LAK 68% · VGK 32%

Faceoffs · VGK won52%off59%neu70%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK1 / 6 · 1.59 xG

VGK1 / 5 · 1.33 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK0 / 14 · 1.79 xG

VGK3 / 12 · 1.39 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK0 / 53 · 0.90 xG

VGK0 / 29 · 0.40 xG

LAK went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.79 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

1 G · 4.28 xG · -3.3

VGK

4 G · 3.12 xG · +0.9

012345

LAK finished -3.3 against expected, VGK +0.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

WRIST1/25

SNAP0/11

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/4

DEFLECTED0/2

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/21

VGK

WRIST2/19

SNAP0/3

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND1/6

SLAP1/2

DEFLECTED0/0

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/12

LAK

VGK

Off the rush

1 G on 32

2.88 xG

1 G on 22

2.27 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 7

1.04 xG

0 G on 3

0.31 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-25, VGK 2-for-19.

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 · 18/22 · .818

-0.9

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.3+0.3

Medium3/121.4-1.6

Low0/290.4+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

A. Hill

VGK · 32/33 · .970

+3.3

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.6+0.6

Medium0/141.8+1.8

Low0/530.9+0.9

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

86 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

52 shots

Final

86 shots

VGK

34 shots

LAK VGK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, VGK 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. Stone

#61 · R · VGK

1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 16:40 on ice · +1

J. Eichel

#9 · C · VGK

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:42 on ice · +1

I. Barbashev

#49 · L · VGK

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 14:06 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Feb 5

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:28 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 2.5-2.3 Vegas victory, giving the Golden Knights 54% win probability — functionally a coin flip.

The underlying play quality bears this out. Los Angeles dominates 5v5 Corsi at 52.0%, matching Vegas's mark, but the Golden Knights pull ahead in expected goals at 54.0% to 52.0%. That gap is narrow enough that it evaporates with one hot streak. Where the teams truly diverge is luck. Vegas's PDO of 0.983 means they're running cold — converting at an unsustainably low rate — while Los Angeles sits at 1.002, right on the nose. Regression theory suggests Vegas will rebound faster than its recent results indicate.

Alex Laferriere leads the Kings' attack with 0.87 xG/60, backed by 16 goals and 18 assists. His 9.9% shooting rate masks the real driver: two high-danger goals from genuine scoring chances. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60) operates in the shadows with 0 goals on 4 assists, a cautionary tale of volume without finish. Adrian Kempe represents Los Angeles's defensive weak link.

Vegas counters with Brandon Saad, who paces the team at 0.91 xG/60 despite a meager 3 goals and 6 assists. His 4.1% shooting rate indicates a player generating elite chances but buried by sample-size variance or positioning. Tomas Hertl offers more established production — 5 goals, 17 assists, and a 0.88 xG/60 mark — though his 4.3% shooting rate similarly undershoots his underlying output. Rasmus Andersson carries defensive responsibility for Vegas.

Both teams generate identical high-danger-goal rates of 0%, and both teams score on 0% of rebound chances. These zeroes aren't signal; they're noise over a small sample. The true separation comes at the model level: Vegas's win probability edge is real but whisper-thin, and a single strong game tips the scales.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VGK 54%

54%

VGK

Model favorite

46%

54%

LAK50VGK

VGK by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.3–2.5 VGK; 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 →VGK

52.0%54.0%

52.0%52.0%

2.422.52

2.202.11

1.852.12

1.712.10

1.0020.983

VGK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.983) 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

-4 GD · 4d rest

VGK

3-5-2

-3 GD · 3d rest

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.983

VGK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

LAK

Expected in goal

A. Forsberg

4 days rest.912 last start

Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

VGK

Expected in goal

A. Hill

3 days rest.864 last start

Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 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

VGK

Brandon Saad3G 6A

0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh

Tomas Hertl5G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page