Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater

Breakdown · STL at LAK

Kings edge the Blues in overtime

Final / OTWed, Apr 1

STLSt. Louis Blues1 LAKLos Angeles Kings2

The verdict · coin flip

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

STL 1 · LAK 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:54 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

Expected goals called this game for the Blues—3.37 to 3.19—yet Los Angeles won 2-1 anyway. The Kings held 52% of shot attempts (26–24 on goal) but the Blues generated more quality chances, a structural advantage that the scoreboard ultimately overruled.

Goaltending decided it. A. Forsberg (LAK) saved 2.37 goals above expected, while J. Binnington (STL) saved 1.19. St. Louis underperformed its xG by 2.37 goals—they got the openings, then couldn't convert. The Kings were efficient: 2 goals on 28 rush chances, converting when it mattered most. High-danger chances finished 5–4 in Los Angeles' favor.

Trevor Moore's snap shot from the slot at 01:56 of overtime was the end of it. Before that: the Blues created 7 rebound opportunities, the Kings 3, neither scoring a second chance.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Apr 1

STL

LAK

Kings edge the Blues in overtime

Chances 3.4 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Kings took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

3.37

LAK

3.19

51% of the chances49%

The board read STL 1, LAK 2. The chances read STL 3.4, LAK 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

LAK

−1.2

goals above expected

LAK3.19 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

STL3.37 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blues left 2.4 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P2 16:59LAKA. KempePP0–1
P3 16:07STLR. Thomas1–1
OT 01:56LAKT. Moore1–2

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

STL

41 shots

Final

77 shots

LAK

36 shots

STL LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLLAK

0 / 4

0.92 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.46 xG

1 / 17

1.92 xG

Medium

1 / 14

1.30 xG

0 / 44

0.52 xG

Low

0 / 32

0.42 xG

The Blues went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A. Forsberg

+2.4

LAK · 23/24

B+

J. Binnington

+1.2

STL · 24/26

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kings edge the Blues in overtime

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 10–6no goals

2ndshots 4–13

16:59LAKA. Kempepower play(A. Laferriere, A. Panarin)0–1

3rdshots 9–4

16:07STLR. Thomas(P. Broberg, D. Holloway)1–1

OTshots 1–3

01:56LAKT. Moore(A. Kopitar, D. Doughty)1–2

score reads STL–LAK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.19

LAK chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.2

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.024

LAK puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

44.0%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.37Expected goals3.19

STL 51% of the chance quality

24Shots on goal26

4High-danger chances5

65All attempts (Corsi)51

Adjusted for score: STL 57% · LAK 43%

Faceoffs · LAK won41%off56%neu58%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL0 / 4 · 0.92 xG

LAK1 / 5 · 1.46 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL1 / 17 · 1.92 xG

LAK1 / 14 · 1.30 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL0 / 44 · 0.52 xG

LAK0 / 32 · 0.42 xG

STL went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.92 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

1 G · 3.37 xG · -2.4

LAK

2 G · 3.19 xG · -1.2

01234

STL finished -2.4 against expected, LAK -1.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

WRIST0/23

SNAP0/5

BACKHAND0/5

TIP IN0/3

SLAP0/2

DEFLECTED1/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/24

LAK

WRIST1/21

SNAP1/3

BACKHAND0/3

TIP IN0/4

SLAP0/4

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/15

STL

LAK

Off the rush

0 G on 24

1.98 xG

2 G on 28

2.83 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 7

0.84 xG

0 G on 3

0.30 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-23, LAK 1-for-21. 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

J. Binnington

STL · 24/26 · .923

+1.2

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.5+0.5

Medium1/141.3+0.3

Low0/320.4+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

A. Forsberg

LAK · 23/24 · .958

+2.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.9+0.9

Medium1/171.9+0.9

Low0/440.5+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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

41 shots

Final

77 shots

LAK

36 shots

STL LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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

P. Broberg

#6 · D · STL

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:16 on ice · +1

D. Doughty

#8 · D · LAK

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:20 on ice · +1

A. Panarin

#10 · L · LAK

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:01 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Apr 1

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:51 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 2.3–2.5 range with the Kings at 55% win probability—the kind of edge that barely qualifies as a verdict.

Los Angeles owns the territorial battle convincingly. At 5v5, the Kings generate 52.0% expected goals to St. Louis's 49.0%, and they drive Corsi at 52.0% to the Blues' 48.0%. Both teams sit near 1.000 PDO, so fortune has been neutral. Yet the Kings are -5 in goal differential over their last 10, the sort of negative variance that often precedes a correction. Their underlying advantage hasn't translated to results.

The rest advantage leans Los Angeles. The Kings get three days between games; the Blues arrive on one. St. Louis will hand the workload to J. Hofer on a back-to-back—he may split starts, or the team may send a tired starter into an already difficult matchup.

Players to Watch

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud — 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
Dylan Holloway — 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 HD goals, 10.8% shooting

LAK

Alex Laferriere — 0.87 xG/60, 16G 18A, 2 HD goals, 9.9% shooting
Jared Wright — 0.83 xG/60, 0G 4A

Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15 goals) and Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals) anchor St. Louis's offensive engine. Los Angeles counters with Laferriere at 0.87 xG/60, who edges Snuggerud in efficiency while matching his 2 high-danger goals and leading 16 to 15 in overall scoring. Wright, at 0.83 xG/60 with 4 assists and no goals, remains a finishing liability the Blues will probe.

The model has priced this correctly at nearly even odds. The Kings' underlying advantage is real, the rest edge is real, and the goaltending mismatch favors them. The negative goal differential is not a signal—it's lag. Take the edge where the math finds it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 55%

55%

LAK

Model favorite

45%

55%

STL50LAK

LAK by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.3–2.5 LAK; 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

STL← edge

edge →LAK

49.0%52.0%

48.0%52.0%

2.342.42

2.402.20

2.001.85

2.121.71

1.0001.002

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 vs 1.002) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

STL

6-2-2

+9 GD · 1d rest

LAK

3-3-4

-5 GD · 3d rest

1.000

STL 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 own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
J. Hofer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Kings are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
The Kings have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

STL

Expected in goal

J. Hofer

back-to-back.828 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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

3 days rest.688 last start

Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A

0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh

Dylan Holloway13G 24A

0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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

Back to the front page