Motion-blurred skater in a Buffalo Sabres sweater
Breakdown · BUF at LAK

Sabres pull away from the Kings

The verdict · coin flip

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

BUF 4 · LAK 1
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:08 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 Sabres' 4-1 victory over the Kings obscured a game that expected goals called nearly even. Buffalo won the underlying battle 2.77–2.61 xG—a 51–49 split that bore no resemblance to the final margin.

What made the difference was finishing. Buffalo converted 3 of 4 high-danger chances (75%); Los Angeles managed 0 for 5. Z. Benson's wrist shot from the top of the circles proved decisive. Later, R. Dahlin added another in high-danger territory.

U. Luukkonen (BUF) was the decisive factor. He made 26 saves on 27 shots, posting a 0.963 save percentage—1.61 goals better than expected—and was perfect on high-danger chances, stopping all 5. A. Forsberg (LAK) stopped 30 of 32 but couldn't overcome his teammates' offensive drought.

The Kings held 44% of shot attempts (27 actual shots to 34 for Buffalo) and created legitimate chances. They crashed the net hard enough to generate 4 rebound opportunities. But they couldn't execute when it mattered. Buffalo's rush game, meanwhile, produced two goals on 27 rush attempts—clinical efficiency where it counted.

This was a game decided not by territorial control or even shot volume, but by how both teams used their high-danger looks. Buffalo capitalized; Los Angeles didn't. U. Luukkonen's wall in net made sure that gap never closed.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 21
BUF
4
LAK
1

Sabres pull away from the Kings

Chances 2.8 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sabres took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
BUF
2.77
LAK
2.61
51% of the chances49%

The board read BUF 4, LAK 1. The chances read BUF 2.8, LAK 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
BUF
+1.2
goals above expected
BUF2.77 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK2.61 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings left 1.6 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. P1 10:48LAKA. PanarinPP0–1
  2. P2 04:05BUFT. Thompson1–1
  3. P3 11:12BUFS. Carrick2–1
  4. P3 12:11BUFR. DahlinPP3–1
  5. P3 17:35BUFZ. BensonEN4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
BUF
43 shots
4
Final
80 shots
LAK
37 shots
1
BUF attackLAK attack
BUF LAK Goal
43
shots · 4 in
37
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
BUFLAK
3 / 4
1.32 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.03 xG
1 / 8
0.76 xG
Medium
1 / 8
0.83 xG
0 / 46
0.69 xG
Low
0 / 41
0.75 xG

The Kings went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
U. Luukkonen
+1.6
BUF · 26/27
B+
A. Forsberg
+0.8
LAK · 30/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sabres pull away from 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 13–8
  1. 10:48LAKA. Panarinpower play(A. Kopitar, A. Kempe)0–1
2ndshots 7–13
  1. 04:05BUFT. Thompson(P. Krebs, M. Samuelsson)1–1
3rdshots 14–6
  1. 11:12BUFS. Carrick(Z. Benson, Z. Metsa)2–1
  2. 12:11BUFR. Dahlinpower play3–1
  3. 17:35BUFZ. Bensonempty net(J. Norris, B. Malenstyn)4–1

score reads BUF–LAK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.77
BUF chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.2
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.050
BUF puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
51.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.77Expected goals2.61
BUF 51% of the chance quality
34Shots on goal27
4High-danger chances5
58All attempts (Corsi)54
Adjusted for score: BUF 52% · LAK 49%
Faceoffs · LAK won58%off77%neu63%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
BUF3 / 4 · 1.32 xG
LAK0 / 5 · 1.03 xG
Medium dangermid-range
BUF1 / 8 · 0.76 xG
LAK1 / 8 · 0.83 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
BUF0 / 46 · 0.69 xG
LAK0 / 41 · 0.75 xG

BUF went 3-for-4 from high danger on 1.32 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
BUF
4 G · 2.77 xG · +1.2
LAK
1 G · 2.61 xG · -1.6
012345

BUF finished +1.2 against expected, LAK -1.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
BUF
WRIST2/27
SLAP0/4
SNAP0/7
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND1/2
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER1/16
LAK
WRIST0/17
SLAP1/9
SNAP0/2
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/17
BUF
LAK
Off the rush
2 G on 27
2.01 xG
1 G on 21
1.43 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
0 G on 4
0.66 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: BUF went 2-for-27, LAK 0-for-17. BUF 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
U. Luukkonen
BUF · 26/27 · .963
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.0+1.0
Medium1/80.8-0.2
Low0/410.8+0.8

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 · 30/32 · .938
+0.8
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/41.3-1.7
Medium1/80.8-0.2
Low0/460.7+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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
BUF
43 shots
4
Final
80 shots
LAK
37 shots
1
BUF attackLAK attack
BUF LAK Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — BUF 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
Z. Benson
#6 · L · BUF
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 15:16 on ice · +2
R. Dahlin
#26 · D · BUF
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 23:07 on ice · +2
A. Panarin
#10 · L · LAK
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 22:06 on ice · -2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 21
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:35 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 BUF 2.4-2.6 LAK game with the Kings at 54% win probability—essentially a pick'em.

Buffalo's 9-1-0 run in their last 10 games masks a structural problem: the Sabres rank 50.0% in expected goals share and 49.0% in Corsi percentage, trailing Los Angeles in both. Recent form conceals fundamental weakness.

The Kings drive territorial control at 52.0% Corsi, translating directly to volume and quality. Their 52.0% expected goals share confirms the pattern—Los Angeles is the better 5v5 team on a full sample.

Yet Buffalo's PDO sits at 1.020, an unsustainable conversion rate. Regression will come, though perhaps not tonight.

Both goaltenders are on back-to-backs. Watch for D. Kuemper to show fatigue or for a backup to start. A. Lyon faces the same situation for Buffalo.

Jason Zucker remains the Sabres' engine, generating 1.07 expected goals per 60 minutes at 15.1% shooting, supported by 6 high-danger goals across 14 goals and 14 assists. Josh Doan runs parallel at 1.01 xG/60 with 15 goals and 18 assists, though 11.5% shooting leaves less margin for variance.

Alex Laferriere anchors the Kings with 0.87 xG/60, 16 goals, 18 assists, and 9.9% conversion. Jared Wright contributes 0.83 xG/60 and 4 assists but remains goalless.

The Kings' structural advantage should yield more looks. Buffalo's recent rhythm could sustain. Back-to-back goaltending on both sides adds uncertainty. For a sport this variable, a 54% edge is the definition of a genuine coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 54%
54%
LAK
Model favorite
46%
54%
BUF50LAK

LAK by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score BUF 2.4–2.6 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
BUF← edge
edge →LAK
50.0%52.0%
49.0%52.0%
2.552.42
2.552.20
2.351.85
1.901.71
1.0201.002

LAK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.020 vs 1.002) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
BUF
9-1-0
+21 GD · 1d rest
LAK
5-3-2
+2 GD · 1d rest
1.020
BUF 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 drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • A. Lyon is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Sabres are the hotter team by points pace (9-1-0 in their last 10).
  • The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
BUF
Expected in goal
A. Lyon
back-to-back1.000 last start
Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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
D. Kuemper
back-to-back.850 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
BUF
Jason Zucker14G 14A
1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh
Josh Doan15G 18A
1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% 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