Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
Breakdown · CGY at LAK

Kings shut out the Flames, 2-0

The verdict · earned

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

CGY 0 · LAK 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:00 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

Calgary's goalie was extraordinary—and it still wasn't enough. D. Wolf's 0.972 SV% (35/36) overperformed by 3.67 goals, a near-perfect performance that somehow coincided with a 0-2 shutout loss. The Kings' dominance in the underlying numbers explains why: they controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (4.67–3.13), out-shot the Flames 37–29, and created the more dangerous chances.

Both teams massively underperformed their models. The Kings left 2.67 goals on the table; the Flames abandoned 3.13. Yet the Kings' superior chance quality prevailed. They generated 0.067 expected goals per shot against the Flames' 0.045—evidence of precision over volume. They crashed the net and forced 9 rebound opportunities, converting none, while the Flames managed only 4 rebound chances.

A. Forsberg (LAK) was equally impressive in the other direction: 29/29 saves, 1.000 SV%, overperforming by 3.13 goals. This matchup between exceptional goaltenders was decided by the team that created higher-quality chances.

The moment. Adrian Kempe's backhander from the wing at 19:22 of the third period.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Feb 28
CGY
0
LAK
2

Kings shut out the Flames, 2-0

Chances 3.1 – 4.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CGY
3.13
LAK
4.67
40% of the chances60%

The board read CGY 0, LAK 2. The chances read CGY 3.1, LAK 4.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−2.7
goals above expected
LAK4.67 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
CGY3.13 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flames left 3.1 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 15:36LAKA. Laferriere0–1
  2. P3 19:22LAKA. KempeEN0–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CGY
46 shots
0
Final
102 shots
LAK
56 shots
2
CGY attackLAK attack
CGY LAK Goal
46
shots · 0 in
56
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CGYLAK
0 / 4
0.91 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.78 xG
0 / 16
1.70 xG
Medium
1 / 19
1.99 xG
0 / 50
0.53 xG
Low
0 / 45
0.90 xG

The Flames went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Wolf
+3.7
CGY · 35/36
A+
A. Forsberg
+3.1
LAK · 29/29
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings shut out the Flames, 2-0

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 14–13no goals
    2ndshots 10–15
    1. 15:36LAKA. Laferriere(Q. Byfield, T. Moore)0–1
    3rdshots 5–9
    1. 19:22LAKA. Kempeempty net(A. Panarin)0–2

    score reads CGY–LAK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.67
    LAK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.7
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.029
    LAK puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    50.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.13Expected goals4.67
    LAK 60% of the chance quality
    29Shots on goal37
    4High-danger chances6
    70All attempts (Corsi)70
    Adjusted for score: CGY 51% · LAK 49%
    Faceoffs · LAK won44%off65%neu55%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CGY0 / 4 · 0.91 xG
    LAK1 / 6 · 1.78 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CGY0 / 16 · 1.70 xG
    LAK1 / 19 · 1.99 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CGY0 / 50 · 0.53 xG
    LAK0 / 45 · 0.90 xG

    CGY went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.70 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CGY
    0 G · 3.13 xG · -3.1
    LAK
    2 G · 4.67 xG · -2.7
    012345

    CGY finished -3.1 against expected, LAK -2.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CGY
    WRIST0/27
    SNAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    BETWEEN LEGS0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/24
    LAK
    WRIST1/36
    SNAP0/5
    BACKHAND1/4
    TIP IN0/1
    SLAP0/4
    DEFLECTED0/3
    WRAP AROUND0/2
    BETWEEN LEGS0/0
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/14
    CGY
    LAK
    Off the rush
    0 G on 26
    1.99 xG
    0 G on 31
    1.98 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.56 xG
    0 G on 9
    1.03 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: CGY went 0-for-27, LAK 1-for-36.

    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. Wolf
    CGY · 35/36 · .972
    +3.7
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.8+0.8
    Medium1/192.0+1.0
    Low0/450.9+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

    A. Forsberg
    LAK · 29/29 · 1.000
    +3.1
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/40.9+0.9
    Medium0/161.7+1.7
    Low0/500.5+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

    102 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CGY
    46 shots
    0
    Final
    102 shots
    LAK
    56 shots
    2
    CGY attackLAK attack
    CGY LAK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CGY 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
    Q. Byfield
    #55 · R · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:16 on ice · +1
    A. Laferriere
    #14 · R · LAK
    1 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 19:38 on ice · +1
    T. Moore
    #12 · L · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:48 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Feb 28
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:58 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

    Los Angeles is favored not just on the scoresheet but in the underlying numbers. The model projects a 2.3–2.7 Kings victory with 57% win probability for LA—and the xG% tells you why: LA runs 52.0% to Calgary's 47.0%, a clear edge in shot quality that extends to territorial control, where the Kings dominate at 52.0% Corsi.

    Calgary's model numbers are in trouble. Their PDO sits at 0.985—they're running cold, which is unsustainable. That's your regression play: the Flames are due for positive swing, but not in time for today. LA's PDO is 1.002, suggesting they've caught some luck, though their underlying metrics back it up.

    Watch Blake Coleman carry the Flames' offensive load at 0.89 xG/60; he's channeling that into tangible results with 16 goals and 12 assists, and he's been lethal in tight with 2 high-danger goals on an 11.4% shooting rate. Matt Coronato is Calgary's secondary threat, logging 0.80 xG/60 and posting 10 goals and 16 assists, though his 6.6% shooting suggests he's due for positive variance.

    For LA, Alex Laferriere carries similar responsibility. He's at 0.87 xG/60 with 16 goals and 18 assists—identical goal and high-danger totals to Coleman—and is finishing at 9.9%. Jared Wright, at 0.83 xG/60, has registered just 0 goals and 4 assists, a role player contributing chances but not converting.

    The territorial imbalance will be the game's defining feature. LA's Corsis and xGF edge mean Calgary will spend stretches chasing the puck, and even if their PDO luck turns, they won't have the volume to overcome the gap in underlying play. Coleman and Coronato will need to execute in transition; Laferriere and the Kings' attack can afford to play in Calgary's end.

    This is a game where the model's edge—57% for LA—reflects real structural advantage, not noise.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 57%
    57%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    43%
    57%
    CGY50LAK

    LAK by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CGY 2.3–2.7 LAK; 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
    CGY← edge
    edge →LAK
    47.0%52.0%
    49.0%52.0%
    2.362.42
    2.662.20
    1.761.85
    2.151.71
    0.9851.002

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

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 0–10
    CGY
    4-4-2
    -5 GD · 1d rest
    LAK
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    0.985
    CGY 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 47.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    CGY
    Expected in goal
    D. Wolf
    back-to-back.971 last start
    Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 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.

    LAK
    Expected in goal
    —
    no game on file

    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
    CGY
    Blake Coleman16G 12A
    0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.4% sh
    Matt Coronato10G 16A
    0.80 xG/60 · 0 HD · 6.6% 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