Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater
← Thu, Apr 2 · the slate
Breakdown · NSH at LAK

Predators run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTThu, Apr 2
NSHNashville Predators5LAKLos Angeles Kings4
The verdict · earned

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

NSH 5 · LAK 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:11 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 Predators won by a goal in a shootout, but the underlying numbers ran away from the Kings. Nashville controlled 62% of expected goals at 5v5 (5.03–3.08)—a rout on the quality metrics.

The Kings offered volume, not threat. They held 49% of shot attempts (33–34 on goal) but accounted for only 38% of expected goals. That split reveals the story: their shots were weak. Nashville averaged 0.070 xG per attempt; Los Angeles managed 0.045. When the Kings did create danger—high-danger chances went 4–7 in their favor—they capitalized ruthlessly (50% conversion, 2/4). Nashville squandered the same chances (0/7), a waste that usually costs games.

The goaltending gap explains why it stayed close. D. Kuemper (LAK) pitched a 0.882 SV% (30/34 saves) and stopped 1.0 goals above expected. His high-danger defense was surgical: 7-for-7 on HD attempts. J. Saros (NSH) underperformed his expected save percentage by 0.92 goals, posting 0.879 (29/33 saves). That gap—over a full goal—should have buried Nashville.

Forechecking couldn't separate them. Both teams scored twice on rush chances (NSH 2/34, LAK 2/33) and struggled with second looks. Nashville generated seven rebounds for one goal; Los Angeles created five for two.

The shootout—decided by Luke Evangelista's backhander—was merely where Nashville finally finished the chances 5v5 couldn't. The game was decided long before.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Apr 2
NSH
5
LAK
4

Predators run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.0 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
5.03
LAK
3.08
62% of the chances38%

The board read NSH 5, LAK 4. The chances read NSH 5.0, LAK 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NSH
−0.0
goals above expected
NSH5.03 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK3.08 expected · 4 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 00:52NSHF. Forsberg1–0
  2. P1 03:47NSHZ. L'Heureux2–0
  3. P2 02:02NSHJ. Marchessault3–0
  4. P2 06:09LAKA. Kempe3–1
  5. P2 08:19NSHS. Stamkos4–1
  6. P2 13:29LAKA. Kempe4–2
  7. P2 15:45LAKS. Laughton4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
62 shots
5
Final
122 shots
LAK
60 shots
4
NSH attackLAK attack
NSH LAK Goal
62
shots · 5 in
60
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHLAK
0 / 7
1.70 xG
High danger
2 / 4
0.94 xG
3 / 20
2.62 xG
Medium
2 / 12
1.24 xG
1 / 45
0.71 xG
Low
0 / 52
0.90 xG

High-danger looks: NSH 0 of 7, LAK 2 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Kuemper
+1.0
LAK · 30/34
D-
J. Saros
−0.9
NSH · 29/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Predators run the Kings 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 18–9
  1. 00:52NSHF. Forsberg(J. Marchessault, E. Haula)1–0
  2. 03:47NSHZ. L'Heureux(B. Skjei)2–0
2ndshots 9–10
  1. 02:02NSHJ. Marchessault(M. Wood, J. Barron)3–0
  2. 06:09LAKA. Kempe(A. Panarin)3–1
  3. 08:19NSHS. Stamkos(R. O'Reilly, R. Josi)4–1
  4. 13:29LAKA. Kempe(J. Edmundson, A. Kopitar)4–2
  5. 15:45LAKS. Laughton(J. Armia, M. Anderson)4–3
3rdshots 5–13
  1. 09:57LAKJ. Armia(J. Wright, B. Dumoulin)4–4
OTshots 2–1no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00NSHL. Evangelistapower play4–4

    score reads NSH–LAK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.03
    NSH chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.0
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.997
    NSH puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    51.4%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.03Expected goals3.08
    NSH 62% of the chance quality
    34Shots on goal33
    7High-danger chances4
    72All attempts (Corsi)68
    Adjusted for score: NSH 46% · LAK 54%
    Faceoffs · LAK won59%off48%neu60%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NSH0 / 7 · 1.70 xG
    LAK2 / 4 · 0.94 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NSH3 / 20 · 2.62 xG
    LAK2 / 12 · 1.24 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NSH1 / 45 · 0.71 xG
    LAK0 / 52 · 0.90 xG

    NSH went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.70 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NSH
    5 G · 5.03 xG · -0.0
    LAK
    4 G · 3.08 xG · +0.9
    0123456

    NSH finished -0.0 against expected, LAK +0.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NSH
    WRIST3/38
    TIP IN0/5
    SNAP0/3
    BACKHAND1/4
    SLAP0/2
    BAT0/1
    POKE0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/18
    LAK
    WRIST2/39
    TIP IN0/2
    SNAP1/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    SLAP0/3
    BAT0/1
    POKE0/0
    DEFLECTED1/1
    OTHER0/16
    NSH
    LAK
    Off the rush
    2 G on 34
    3.31 xG
    2 G on 33
    1.97 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 7
    1.07 xG
    2 G on 5
    0.79 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 3-for-38, LAK 2-for-39. NSH 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. Saros
    NSH · 29/33 · .879
    -0.9
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/40.9-1.1
    Medium2/121.2-0.8
    Low0/520.9+0.9

    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. Kuemper
    LAK · 30/34 · .882
    +1.0
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/71.7+1.7
    Medium3/202.6-0.4
    Low1/450.7-0.3

    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

    122 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NSH
    62 shots
    5
    Final
    122 shots
    LAK
    60 shots
    4
    NSH attackLAK attack
    NSH LAK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH 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
    J. Marchessault
    #81 · R · NSH
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 21:12 on ice
    A. Kempe
    #9 · R · LAK
    2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 20:26 on ice · +1
    J. Armia
    #40 · R · LAK
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 13:08 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Apr 2
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:08 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 2.3-2.6 game, and the Kings sit at 55% win probability — a textbook flip. Nashville and Los Angeles have split the margin so fine that almost any outcome passes the smell test.

    The Kings own the underlying play. They generate 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 versus Nashville's 49.0%, a meaningful edge in shot quality. Corsi tells the same story: 52.0% to 50.0%. But recent form is treacherous. Los Angeles is -5 in goal differential over its last 10 games, and while their PDO of 1.002 suggests some luck is still flowing their way, Nashville's 0.992 indicates the Predators have been on the wrong end of variance.

    Shooting is where execution separates. Zachary L'Heureux drives Nashville's offense with 0.85 expected goals per 60 and a 16.0% shooting rate — elite creation paired with elite finish — producing 4 goals. Filip Forsberg (0.80 xG/60, 13.6% shooting) has banked 23. Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere (0.87 xG/60, 9.9% shooting, 16 goals) and Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0 goals on 4 assists).

    Both teams have generated 0% of their goals from hard chances and 0% from rebounds — all scoring has come from medium-danger situations. That's a vulnerable foundation if either goalie finds rhythm. Jonathan Marchessault is Nashville's defensive weak link; Adrian Kempe occupies the same role for Los Angeles. The Kings' underlying edge is real but not bulletproof. If this game plays out along expected-goal lines, Los Angeles should prevail. But 55% ownership doesn't guarantee the outcome; one night settles nothing.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 55%
    55%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    45%
    55%
    NSH50LAK

    LAK by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NSH 2.3–2.6 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
    NSH← edge
    edge →LAK
    49.0%52.0%
    50.0%52.0%
    2.482.42
    2.582.20
    1.841.85
    2.211.71
    0.9921.002

    LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 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
    NSH
    5-4-1
    +1 GD · 4d rest
    LAK
    3-3-4
    -5 GD · 4d rest
    0.992
    NSH 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%.
    Things to watch
    • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
    • The Kings are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    NSH
    Expected in goal
    J. Annunen
    4 days rest.893 last start
    Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    4 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
    NSH
    Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
    0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
    Filip Forsberg23G 17A
    0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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