Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
Breakdown · COL at LAK

Avalanche run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

COL 4 · LAK 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:28 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

Colorado beat Los Angeles 4–2 using the kind of goal-scoring efficiency that doesn't show up in expected-goals models. The Avalanche generated five high-danger chances and finished 0 for 5. They scored two from low-danger spots—shots goaltenders should stop—and added two more off the rush. Yet they still dominated.

The underlying numbers confirm it: Colorado controlled 71% of expected goals (4.23–1.75) and held Los Angeles to 35% of shot attempts (21–39 on goal). The Avalanche's shots were sharper, too. They generated 0.054 xG per attempt versus the Kings' 0.038, the kind of edge that compounds over a full game.

A. Forsberg couldn't overcome the deficit. He stopped 35 of 38 shots (0.921 SV%, +1.23 vs expected) and was perfect on all five high-danger chances he faced—typically the stats of a stolen game. Instead, he got a loss. Colorado's control was simply too total; goaltending brilliance couldn't stop the tide.

Martin Necas's wrist shot from the point (P3, 19:58) crystallized what the numbers had already decided. M. Blackwood earned the win by managing 19 saves on 21 shots (0.905 SV%), nothing special, just steady while his teammates imposed their will.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 2
COL
4
LAK
2

Avalanche run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.2 – 1.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Avalanche earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
COL
4.23
LAK
1.75
71% of the chances29%

The board read COL 4, LAK 2. The chances read COL 4.2, LAK 1.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
−0.2
goals above expected
COL4.23 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK1.75 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
  1. P1 04:27COLN. MacKinnon1–0
  2. P1 10:13COLG. Landeskog2–0
  3. P1 17:20LAKB. ClarkePP2–1
  4. P2 08:32LAKA. Booth2–2
  5. P3 15:05COLD. Toews3–2
  6. P3 19:58COLM. NecasEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
COL
55 shots
4
Final
90 shots
LAK
35 shots
2
COL attackLAK attack
COL LAK Goal
55
shots · 4 in
35
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
COLLAK
0 / 5
1.39 xG
High danger
0 / 0
0.00 xG
2 / 17
1.93 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.25 xG
2 / 57
0.91 xG
Low
1 / 34
0.50 xG

High-danger looks: COL 0 of 5, LAK 0 of 0.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
A. Forsberg
+1.2
LAK · 35/38
C
M. Blackwood
−0.3
COL · 19/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 9–8
  1. 04:27COLN. MacKinnon(M. Necas, G. Landeskog)1–0
  2. 10:13COLG. Landeskog(B. Burns, M. Necas)2–0
  3. 17:20LAKB. Clarkepower play(A. Kopitar)2–1
2ndshots 14–5
  1. 08:32LAKA. Booth(B. Dumoulin, A. Kempe)2–2
3rdshots 16–8
  1. 15:05COLD. Toews(N. MacKinnon, C. Makar)3–2
  2. 19:58COLM. Necasempty net(G. Landeskog)4–2

score reads COL–LAK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.23
COL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.007
COL puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
63.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.23Expected goals1.75
COL 71% of the chance quality
39Shots on goal21
5High-danger chances0
79All attempts (Corsi)46
Adjusted for score: COL 61% · LAK 39%
Faceoffs · LAK won26%off56%neu65%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
COL0 / 5 · 1.39 xG
LAK0 / 0 · 0.00 xG
Medium dangermid-range
COL2 / 17 · 1.93 xG
LAK1 / 12 · 1.25 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
COL2 / 57 · 0.91 xG
LAK1 / 34 · 0.50 xG

COL went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.39 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
COL
4 G · 4.23 xG · -0.2
LAK
2 G · 1.75 xG · +0.3
012345

COL finished -0.2 against expected, LAK +0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
COL
WRIST2/31
SLAP1/10
TIP IN0/4
SNAP1/5
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/24
LAK
WRIST1/21
SLAP0/2
TIP IN1/4
SNAP0/2
BACKHAND0/4
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/11
COL
LAK
Off the rush
2 G on 35
3.41 xG
1 G on 15
0.95 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.22 xG
0 G on 4
0.45 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: COL went 2-for-31, LAK 1-for-21. COL 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
M. Blackwood
COL · 19/21 · .905
-0.3
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
Medium1/121.3+0.3
Low1/340.5-0.5

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

A. Forsberg
LAK · 35/38 · .921
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.4+1.4
Medium2/171.9-0.1
Low2/570.9-1.1

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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
COL
55 shots
4
Final
90 shots
LAK
35 shots
2
COL attackLAK attack
COL LAK Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — COL 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
M. Necas
#88 · C · COL
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:25 on ice · +3
G. Landeskog
#92 · L · COL
1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 18:44 on ice · +3
N. MacKinnon
#29 · C · COL
1 G · 1 A · 8 SOG · 21:07 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Mar 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:14 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 2.6-2.5 Avalanche win with Colorado at 52% probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find—a genuine coin flip.

Colorado owns the underlying play. At 57.0% xG and 57.0% Corsi, the Avalanche command territorial advantage and generate chances at a consistent clip. These metrics typically translate to wins over time. But Colorado's 1.021 PDO signals unsustainable finishing rates; regression is due. The Kings, meanwhile, carry a -12 goal differential over their last 10, meaning they've played worse than their underlying metrics suggest. Colorado's edge is real, but precarious.

Goaltending adds uncertainty. A. Forsberg plays on a back-to-back, raising the question of whether he starts or Colorado turns to a backup. Fatigue or rust from either outcome could shift momentum.

Three Stars:

  • Artturi Lehkonen (COL) — 1.11 xG/60, 18G 22A, 6 high-danger goals. He's Colorado's engine; the Avalanche's attack runs through him.
  • Alex Laferriere (LAK) — 0.87 xG/60, 16G 18A, 2 high-danger goals. The Kings cannot compete without consistent output from their leading scorer.
  • Ross Colton (COL) — 1.10 xG/60, 7G 15A, 1 high-danger goal at 4.9% shooting. He's underperforming his chances; one typical night could decide this.

Nazem Kadri represents Colorado's defensive liability. Adrian Kempe fills that role for the Kings. Both teams sit at 0% for high-danger goals and 0% for rebound goals—an impossibility that regression will correct. The team that normalizes its finishing rates first gains a meaningful edge in a matchup this tightly balanced.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 52%
52%
COL
Model favorite
52%
48%
COL50LAK

COL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score COL 2.6–2.5 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
COL← edge
edge →LAK
57.0%52.0%
57.0%52.0%
3.032.42
2.302.20
2.631.85
1.561.71
1.0211.002

COL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 1.002) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
COL
5-5-0
-2 GD · 2d rest
LAK
4-5-1
-12 GD · 1d rest
1.021
COL 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 Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • A. Forsberg is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Kings are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
COL
Expected in goal
M. Blackwood
2 days rest.933 last start
Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

LAK
Expected in goal
A. Forsberg
back-to-back1.000 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.

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
COL
Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
Ross Colton7G 15A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% 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