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

Kings shut out the Canucks, 4-0

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 4 · VAN 0
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:08 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 Kings rolled past Vancouver 4–0, and while the underlying numbers largely backed it up, the starkest disconnect was Vancouver's execution: they squandered 2.26 expected goals to score zero.

Los Angeles controlled the pace at 5v5, owning 69% of expected goals (5.09 to 2.26). Vancouver's shot attempts were few (19 of 37 total, 33%), and their high-danger looks lagged (3 to 6, in LA's favor). When shots did come, they lacked consequence: Vancouver shot at 0.048 xG per attempt against Los Angeles's 0.075, a gap that explains the 4–0 margin.

D. Kuemper made the difference. He stopped 19 of 19 and saved 2.26 goals above expected, turning what could have been closer into a blowout. K. Lankinen, meanwhile, saved 2.09 above expected—he kept Vancouver in contention—but his team never generated the underlying volume to threaten.

Los Angeles opened the scoring through Q. Byfield's wrist shot from the wing (period 3, 17:36). The rushing game proved lethal: two goals on 28 chances shows elite efficiency. M. Anderson orchestrated the offense with two assists, T. Moore added a goal and assist, and Byfield chipped in a goal to join the three stars.

This was a clinic in depth and discipline. Vancouver created rebound chances (three total) but couldn't convert; Los Angeles created four and converted zero. The underlying advantage was so steep that individual sequences didn't matter.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 26
LAK
4
VAN
0

Kings shut out the Canucks, 4-0

Chances 5.1 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
5.09
VAN
2.26
69% of the chances31%

The board read LAK 4, VAN 0. The chances read LAK 5.1, VAN 2.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−1.1
goals above expected
LAK5.09 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN2.26 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Canucks left 2.3 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 17:34LAKS. LaughtonPP1–0
  2. P2 01:21LAKT. Moore2–0
  3. P2 19:21LAKA. Panarin3–0
  4. P3 17:36LAKQ. ByfieldEN4–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
50 shots
4
Final
82 shots
VAN
32 shots
0
LAK attackVAN attack
LAK VAN Goal
50
shots · 4 in
32
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKVAN
1 / 6
2.57 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.70 xG
3 / 15
1.84 xG
Medium
0 / 8
0.91 xG
0 / 47
0.68 xG
Low
0 / 36
0.66 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
D. Kuemper
+2.3
LAK · 19/19
A
K. Lankinen
+2.1
VAN · 34/37
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings shut out the Canucks, 4-0

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 15–7
  1. 17:34LAKS. Laughtonpower play(Q. Byfield, T. Moore)1–0
2ndshots 17–5
  1. 01:21LAKT. Moore(M. Anderson, A. Laferriere)2–0
  2. 19:21LAKA. Panarin(A. Kempe)3–0
3rdshots 6–7
  1. 17:36LAKQ. Byfieldempty net(M. Anderson, D. Doughty)4–0

score reads LAK–VAN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.09
LAK chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.1
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.059
LAK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
59.1%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.09Expected goals2.26
LAK 69% of the chance quality
38Shots on goal19
6High-danger chances3
68All attempts (Corsi)47
Adjusted for score: LAK 54% · VAN 46%
Faceoffs · VAN won23%off40%neu20%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK1 / 6 · 2.57 xG
VAN0 / 3 · 0.70 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK3 / 15 · 1.84 xG
VAN0 / 8 · 0.91 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK0 / 47 · 0.68 xG
VAN0 / 36 · 0.66 xG

LAK went 1-for-6 from high danger on 2.57 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
4 G · 5.09 xG · -1.1
VAN
0 G · 2.26 xG · -2.3
0123456

LAK finished -1.1 against expected, VAN -2.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
WRIST1/29
TIP IN1/6
SNAP0/4
SLAP0/3
DEFLECTED1/3
BACKHAND1/3
POKE0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/18
VAN
WRIST0/26
TIP IN0/2
SNAP0/2
SLAP0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
BACKHAND0/0
POKE0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/15
LAK
VAN
Off the rush
2 G on 28
2.18 xG
0 G on 18
1.29 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.64 xG
0 G on 3
0.51 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-29, VAN 0-for-26. 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 · 19/19 · 1.000
+2.3
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.7+0.7
Medium0/80.9+0.9
Low0/360.7+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

K. Lankinen
VAN · 34/37 · .919
+2.1
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/62.6+1.6
Medium3/151.8-1.2
Low0/470.7+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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
LAK
50 shots
4
Final
82 shots
VAN
32 shots
0
LAK attackVAN attack
LAK VAN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, VAN 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. Anderson
#44 · D · LAK
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:01 on ice · +2
T. Moore
#12 · L · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 17:57 on ice · +2
Q. Byfield
#55 · R · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:53 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Mar 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:06 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 2.6–2.3 Kings win with Los Angeles at 55% win probability. The model sees clear territorial dominance: the Kings generate 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals to Vancouver's 44.0%, and they control 52.0% of possession—the kind of sustained advantage that usually translates.

But here's the catch. Vancouver's PDO sits at 0.974, a cold streak built on bad luck as much as bad play. Regression is coming. Los Angeles is at 1.002, meaning every projection needs to account for normalization on both sides, and Vancouver's upside is larger.

Both teams are bleeding. Vancouver sits -9 on goal differential over their last 10 games; Los Angeles is -5. Neither is trending well, though the Kings' underlying work suggests their recent results have been dragged down by variance too.

Both K. Lankinen and D. Kuemper are on back-to-backs—watch for backup appearances or noticeably tired starters.

The Kings' primary threat is Alex Laferriere, who generates 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes. He's at 16 goals, 18 assists, with 2 high-danger chances and a 9.9% shooting rate. Support comes from Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0 goals, 4 assists)—low volume so far, but eating minutes with dangerous company.

Vancouver's top performer is Drew O'Connor: 13 goals, 11 assists, 0.85 xG/60, 3 high-danger chances, 11.8% shooting rate. Filip Chytil carries heavier shot volume (1.03 xG/60) but is likely unavailable, having not played in 52 days. Without him, Vancouver's depth thins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 55%
55%
LAK
Model favorite
55%
45%
LAK50VAN

LAK by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.6–2.3 VAN; 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 →VAN
52.0%44.0%
52.0%46.0%
2.422.22
2.202.81
1.851.60
1.712.56
1.0020.974

LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.974) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
LAK
3-3-4
-5 GD · 1d rest
VAN
3-6-1
-9 GD · 1d rest
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.974
VAN 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 44.0%.
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
  • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • K. Lankinen 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 Canucks are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Kings are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — 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.913 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.

VAN
Expected in goal
K. Lankinen
back-to-back.879 last start
Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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
VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next