Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Fri, Mar 13 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at NYI

Kings run the Islanders off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalFri, Mar 13
LAKLos Angeles Kings3NYINew York Islanders2
The verdict · earned

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

LAK 3 · NYI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:01 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 Kings won 3-2, but the high-danger chances told a far more lopsided story: Kings 7, Islanders 1. The Kings dominated the dangerous areas and should have run away with it.

The Kings controlled 63% of 5v5 expected goals (4.58–2.73), translating to a massive 0.075 xG per shot compared to the Islanders' 0.038. The Islanders had the volume—46% of shot attempts (23–27)—but couldn't generate quality chances. When the Islanders did get opportunities, they scored: two rush goals on 35 chances proved lethal. The Kings, though, converted three rush chances on 28 attempts, sustaining their scoring punch even when play moved outside their usual territory.

The scoreline was closer than the underlying numbers suggest. The Kings underperformed expected goals by 1.58, leaving genuine grade-A chances unfinished. The Islanders underperformed by 0.73, which tells you how inefficient they were: I. Sorokin (NYI) stopped 1.58 goals above expected, recording 24/27 saves at 0.889. D. Kuemper (LAK) made 21/23 saves at 0.913, posting a +0.73 save-percentage advantage.

The Kings' dominant 63% xG share reflected superior puck management and positioning, yet the 3-2 margin masks their wasteful finish. The Islanders leaned on their goalie and opportunism on the rush; it kept them competitive but never in control.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 13
LAK
3
NYI
2

Kings run the Islanders off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.6 – 2.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
4.58
NYI
2.73
63% of the chances37%

The board read LAK 3, NYI 2. The chances read LAK 4.6, NYI 2.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−1.6
goals above expected
LAK4.58 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NYI2.73 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 03:33LAKT. Moore1–0
  2. P1 13:07LAKA. Kopitar2–0
  3. P1 18:28LAKA. Kempe3–0
  4. P2 10:46NYIE. Heineman3–1
  5. P3 03:38NYIE. Heineman3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
43 shots
3
Final
90 shots
NYI
47 shots
2
LAK attackNYI attack
LAK NYI Goal
43
shots · 3 in
47
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKNYI
1 / 7
2.16 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.23 xG
2 / 17
1.97 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.60 xG
0 / 37
0.45 xG
Low
1 / 57
0.90 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 1 of 7, NYI 0 of 1.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
I. Sorokin
+1.6
NYI · 24/27
B
D. Kuemper
+0.7
LAK · 21/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings run the Islanders 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 10–4
  1. 03:33LAKT. Moore1–0
  2. 13:07LAKA. Kopitar(M. Anderson, A. Turcotte)2–0
  3. 18:28LAKA. Kempe(A. Panarin)3–0
2ndshots 13–8
  1. 10:46NYIE. Heineman(A. Pelech, B. Horvat)3–1
3rdshots 4–11
  1. 03:38NYIE. Heineman(M. Schaefer, B. Horvat)3–2

score reads LAK–NYI

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.58
LAK chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.6
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.021
LAK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.58Expected goals2.73
LAK 63% of the chance quality
27Shots on goal23
7High-danger chances1
61All attempts (Corsi)72
Adjusted for score: LAK 40% · NYI 60%
Faceoffs · NYI won61%off57%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK1 / 7 · 2.16 xG
NYI0 / 1 · 0.23 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK2 / 17 · 1.97 xG
NYI1 / 14 · 1.60 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK0 / 37 · 0.45 xG
NYI1 / 57 · 0.90 xG

LAK went 1-for-7 from high danger on 2.16 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
3 G · 4.58 xG · -1.6
NYI
2 G · 2.73 xG · -0.7
012345

LAK finished -1.6 against expected, NYI -0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
WRIST3/21
SNAP0/6
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/6
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
POKE0/1
OTHER0/18
NYI
WRIST0/32
SNAP0/5
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/1
TIP IN1/4
DEFLECTED1/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/25
LAK
NYI
Off the rush
3 G on 28
3.25 xG
2 G on 35
2.13 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.17 xG
0 G on 2
0.28 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 3-for-21, NYI 0-for-32. LAK scored 3 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
D. Kuemper
LAK · 21/23 · .913
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium1/141.6+0.6
Low1/570.9-0.1

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

I. Sorokin
NYI · 24/27 · .889
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/72.2+1.2
Medium2/172.0-0.0
Low0/370.5+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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
LAK
43 shots
3
Final
90 shots
NYI
47 shots
2
LAK attackNYI attack
LAK NYI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, NYI 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
B. Horvat
#14 · C · NYI
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:37 on ice · +1
E. Heineman
#51 · L · NYI
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 15:44 on ice · +1
M. Schaefer
#48 · D · NYI
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 29:24 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Mar 13
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:00 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 LAK edge, with the Kings at 52% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The Islanders are the hotter team, posting a 7-3-0 record over their last 10 games. The Kings have drifted in the other direction, registering a −13 goal differential in that stretch. Yet the underlying metrics tell a different story. Los Angeles drives play at a 52.0% 5v5 expected-goals share against 48.0% for New York, and commands territorial control at 52.0% Corsi. The Kings' 1.002 PDO suggests they're neither fluking nor underperforming; the Islanders' 0.993 sits slightly inverted.

The tension here is real: Los Angeles owns the process, but New York has the hot hand. One of these trends will break.

Anders Lee poses the most immediate threat. Generating 1.20 expected goals per 60 minutes with 20 assists, he profiles as an elite creator. Bo Horvat's 12.8% shooting rate is unsustainable, but his 18 goals and three high-danger tallies are no mirage; he's averaging 0.87 xG/60.

Alex Laferriere operates at the same xG/60 rate (0.87) while compiling 16 goals and 18 assists on a 9.9% shooting rate—healthier than Horvat's. Jared Wright supplies supporting depth at 0.83 xG/60, though his 4-assist, 0-goal line obscures his volume.

Adrian Kempe represents Los Angeles's defensive weak link; Alexander Romanov occupies that role for New York. The model captures the essence: a game where structural advantage collides with momentum, leaving a verdict determined by single plays. The Kings' shot-generation edge is real, but the Islanders' recent run too clean to dismiss.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 52%
52%
LAK
Model favorite
52%
48%
LAK50NYI

LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.6–2.5 NYI; 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 →NYI
52.0%48.0%
52.0%49.0%
2.422.48
2.202.69
1.851.78
1.711.94
1.0020.993

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.993) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
LAK
3-6-1
-13 GD · 3d rest
NYI
7-3-0
-1 GD · 3d rest
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.993
NYI 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 48.0%.
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Islanders are the hotter team by points pace (7-3-0 in their last 10).
  • The Kings are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
LAK
Expected in goal
D. Kuemper
3 days rest.913 last start
Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NYI
Expected in goal
I. Sorokin
3 days rest.870 last start
Backup Ilya Sorokin · +25.3 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
NYI
Anders Lee9G 20A
1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh
Bo Horvat18G 10A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page