Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Tue, Mar 24 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at CGY

Flames edge the Kings in a shootout

Final / OTTue, Mar 24
LAKLos Angeles Kings2CGYCalgary Flames3
The verdict · coin flip

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

LAK 2 · CGY 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:47 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 generated the game's best chances — 3.04 expected goals to Calgary's 3.00 — but scored only two. That 1.04-goal miss despite superior positioning is the story of Calgary's shootout win: elite expected quality went unrewarded.

Los Angeles drew five high-danger chances and converted zero. Calgary drew six and buried one. D. Wolf stopped all five high-danger chances he faced (0.920 SV%). D. Kuemper made 21 of 23 saves (0.913 SV%), outperforming his expected value by one goal. On the rush, both teams scored twice: the Kings on 23 chances, Calgary on 26. The game turned in the shootout, where Yegor Sharangovich's wrist shot from the doorstep decided it.

Q. Byfield led Los Angeles with two goals in 19:50. O. Maatta scored for Calgary.

Three Stars

  • #55 Q. Byfield (LAK) — 2G in 19:50
  • #8 D. Doughty (LAK) — 1A in 25:48
  • #3 O. Maatta (CGY) — 1G in 20:25
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Mar 24
LAK
2
CGY
3

Flames edge the Kings in a shootout

Chances 3.0 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Flames took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
3.04
CGY
3.00
50% of the chances50%

The board read LAK 2, CGY 3. The chances read LAK 3.0, CGY 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
+0.0
goals above expected
CGY3.00 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK3.04 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 02:35LAKQ. Byfield1–0
  2. P2 14:50CGYO. Maatta1–1
  3. P3 00:17LAKQ. Byfield2–1
  4. P3 13:02CGYZ. ParekhPP2–2
  5. SO 00:00CGYM. FrostPP2–2
  6. SO 00:00LAKA. PanarinPP2–2
  7. SO 00:00CGYY. SharangovichPP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
43 shots
3
Final
83 shots
CGY
40 shots
4
LAK attackCGY attack
LAK CGY Goal

Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

43
shots · 3 in
40
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKCGY
0 / 5
1.06 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.37 xG
2 / 15
1.53 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.27 xG
0 / 35
0.45 xG
Low
0 / 33
0.36 xG

The Kings went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Wolf
+1.0
CGY · 23/25
B+
D. Kuemper
+1.0
LAK · 21/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Flames edge the Kings in a shootout

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 8–6
  1. 02:35LAKQ. Byfield(J. Armia, D. Doughty)1–0
2ndshots 9–6
  1. 14:50CGYO. Maatta(V. Olofsson, R. Strome)1–1
3rdshots 7–10
  1. 00:17LAKQ. Byfield(T. Moore, A. Laferriere)2–1
  2. 13:02CGYZ. Parekhpower play(M. Coronato, M. Gridin)2–2
OTshots 1–1no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00CGYM. Frostpower play2–2
    2. 00:00LAKA. Panarinpower play2–2
    3. 00:00CGYY. Sharangovichpower play2–2

    score reads LAK–CGY

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.00
    CGY chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.0
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.003
    CGY puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    48.1%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.04Expected goals3.00
    LAK 50% of the chance quality
    25Shots on goal23
    5High-danger chances6
    55All attempts (Corsi)51
    Adjusted for score: LAK 49% · CGY 51%
    Faceoffs · CGY won62%off57%neu35%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    LAK0 / 5 · 1.06 xG
    CGY1 / 6 · 1.37 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    LAK2 / 15 · 1.53 xG
    CGY1 / 12 · 1.27 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    LAK0 / 35 · 0.45 xG
    CGY0 / 33 · 0.36 xG

    LAK went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.06 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    LAK
    2 G · 3.04 xG · -1.0
    CGY
    3 G · 3.00 xG · +0.0
    01234

    LAK finished -1.0 against expected, CGY +0.0.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    LAK
    WRIST0/16
    BACKHAND1/8
    SNAP1/7
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN0/2
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/16
    CGY
    WRIST2/22
    BACKHAND0/3
    SNAP0/3
    SLAP0/1
    TIP IN0/5
    BAT0/2
    OTHER0/15
    LAK
    CGY
    Off the rush
    2 G on 23
    1.99 xG
    2 G on 26
    2.44 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 4
    0.21 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.26 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 0-for-16, CGY 2-for-22. LAK 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
    D. Kuemper
    LAK · 21/23 · .913
    +1.0
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.4+0.4
    Medium1/121.3+0.3
    Low0/330.4+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

    D. Wolf
    CGY · 23/25 · .920
    +1.0
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.1+1.1
    Medium2/151.5-0.5
    Low0/350.5+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

    83 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    LAK
    43 shots
    3
    Final
    83 shots
    CGY
    40 shots
    4
    LAK attackCGY attack
    LAK CGY Goal

    Shootout goals are not shots and are not drawn; the scoreboard above counts goals from the shot log.

    Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, CGY 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
    2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:50 on ice · +1
    D. Doughty
    #8 · D · LAK
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 25:48 on ice · +1
    O. Maatta
    #3 · D · CGY
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 20:25 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Mar 24
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:46 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 has the better team, but Calgary is due for mean reversion—this matchup hinges on whether probability catches up in one night.

    The model projects 2.5-2.4 Kings with Los Angeles at 53% win probability, which means this is functionally a pick'em. The underlying play favors the visitors decisively: Los Angeles generates 52.0% expected goals at even strength against Calgary's 47.0%, and their Corsi advantage (52.0% to 49.0%) reflects consistent territorial control. The Flames, meanwhile, have fallen to -8 goal differential over their last 10—proof that their play hasn't been masking deeper issues.

    Calgary's escape hatch is its PDO of 0.985, a cold-running indicator that historically precedes positive regression. Los Angeles carries a 1.002 PDO, slightly above neutral and more sustainable. Both goaltenders enter on back-to-backs—D. Cooley and D. Kuemper could see backup duty or simply show fatigue.

    Los Angeles leans on Alex Laferriere, who generates 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes, has 16 goals and 18 assists, owns 2 high-danger markers, and shoots 9.9%. Jared Wright contributes 0.83 xG/60 with 4 assists across 0 goals. Calgary counters with Blake Coleman at 0.89 xG/60 (16G, 12A, 2 high-danger, 11.4% shooting) and Matt Coronato at 0.80 xG/60 (10G, 16A, 6.6% shooting).

    The forward talent and territorial edge both tilt toward Los Angeles, but Calgary's PDO gap is large enough that regression could swing this. If the Flames catch up to their true talent while the Kings regress, Los Angeles' underlying advantage evaporates within a single game. That's the coin flip the model is capturing.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 53%
    53%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    LAK50CGY

    LAK by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.4 CGY; 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 →CGY
    52.0%47.0%
    52.0%49.0%
    2.422.36
    2.202.66
    1.851.76
    1.712.15
    1.0020.985

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

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    LAK
    4-3-3
    -2 GD · 1d rest
    CGY
    5-5-0
    -8 GD · 1d rest
    1.002
    LAK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.985
    CGY 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.
    • D. Cooley is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Flames are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    back-to-back.882 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.

    CGY
    Expected in goal
    D. Cooley
    back-to-back.914 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.

    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
    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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page