Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater

Breakdown · TOR at LAK

Kings run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTSat, Apr 4

TORToronto Maple Leafs6 LAKLos Angeles Kings7

The verdict · earned

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

TOR 6 · LAK 7

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:23 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' 7-6 overtime victory understates their dominance. They generated 68% of expected goals (5.49–2.56), a measure of shot quality, and held 67% of shot attempts (40–20). Yet this 14-point margin compressed to a one-goal scoreboard win—a gap that points to a single culprit: Toronto got exceptionally lucky. The Leafs outperformed their xG by 3.44 goals; the Kings added just 1.51 to theirs.

Toronto's conversion in high-danger areas drove the luck. They buried 2 of 5 prime scoring chances (40%), a rate far above typical. Off the rush, they were equally sharp: 5 goals on 21 attempts, a finish rate that overcomes territorial disadvantage.

The goaltending metrics isolate the variance. J. Woll saved 33 of 40 shots at 0.825 SV%, a mark 1.51 goals below expectation given shot volume. D. Kuemper stopped 14 of 20 at 0.700 SV%, missing expectation by 3.44 despite lighter traffic. Low-danger shooting benefited Los Angeles—2 goals from spots where conversion typically fails. The Kings also created 7 rebound opportunities to Toronto's 3, a net-front advantage that surfaced on the scoreboard despite their broader underlying margin.

Quinton Byfield ended it at 02:33 of overtime with a wrist shot from the slot.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Apr 4

TOR

LAK

Kings run the Maple Leafs off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.6 – 5.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

TOR

2.56

LAK

5.49

32% of the chances68%

The board read TOR 6, LAK 7. The chances read TOR 2.6, LAK 5.5.

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

Luck check

LAK

+1.5

goals above expected

LAK5.49 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

TOR2.56 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

The Kings scored 1.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 04:19TORM. Knies1–0
P1 13:42TORS. LorentzSH2–0
P2 01:11LAKQ. Byfield2–1
P2 03:55LAKA. Kempe2–2
P2 09:18TORJ. TavaresPP3–2
P2 14:53LAKA. Panarin3–3
P2 19:47TORE. CowanPP4–3

+6 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

TOR

31 shots

Final

98 shots

LAK

67 shots

TOR LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 7 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

TORLAK

2 / 5

1.15 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.08 xG

4 / 10

0.99 xG

Medium

4 / 29

3.25 xG

0 / 30

0.43 xG

Low

2 / 51

1.15 xG

High-danger looks: TOR 2 of 5, LAK 1 of 5.

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

In the net

J. Woll

−1.5

TOR · 33/40

D. Kuemper

−3.4

LAK · 14/20

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kings run the Maple Leafs 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 8–11

04:19TORM. Knies(M. Domi)1–0
13:42TORS. Lorentzshorthanded2–0

2ndshots 6–17

01:11LAKQ. Byfield(J. Wright, T. Moore)2–1
03:55LAKA. Kempe(M. Anderson)2–2
09:18TORJ. Tavarespower play(W. Nylander, M. Knies)3–2
14:53LAKA. Panarin(B. Clarke, A. Kempe)3–3
19:47TORE. Cowanpower play(J. Tavares, M. Knies)4–3

3rdshots 5–8

05:46LAKA. Kempe(A. Panarin, J. Edmundson)4–4
06:14LAKS. Helenius(T. Ward, C. Ceci)4–5
07:22LAKA. Laferriere(T. Moore)4–6
09:37TORN. Robertson(D. Joshua)5–6
13:29TORM. Knies(J. Tavares, M. Maccelli)6–6

OTshots 1–4

02:33LAKQ. Byfield(A. Panarin, A. Kempe)6–7

score reads TOR–LAK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.49

LAK chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

0.949

LAK puck luck

Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them

65.4%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.56Expected goals5.49

LAK 68% of the chance quality

20Shots on goal40

5High-danger chances5

45All attempts (Corsi)85

Adjusted for score: TOR 33% · LAK 67%

Faceoffs · LAK won58%off61%neu67%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

TOR2 / 5 · 1.15 xG

LAK1 / 5 · 1.08 xG

Medium dangermid-range

TOR4 / 10 · 0.99 xG

LAK4 / 29 · 3.25 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

TOR0 / 30 · 0.43 xG

LAK2 / 51 · 1.15 xG

TOR went 4-for-10 from medium danger on 0.99 expected goals — 3.0 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

TOR

6 G · 2.56 xG · +3.4

LAK

7 G · 5.49 xG · +1.5

012345678

TOR finished +3.4 against expected, LAK +1.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

TOR

WRIST4/23

TIP IN0/2

SLAP0/0

SNAP2/4

BACKHAND0/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/14

LAK

WRIST4/41

TIP IN2/10

SLAP0/10

SNAP1/4

BACKHAND0/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/18

TOR

LAK

Off the rush

5 G on 21

1.94 xG

7 G on 42

3.55 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.49 xG

0 G on 7

1.26 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: TOR went 4-for-23, LAK 4-for-41. LAK scored 7 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. Woll

TOR · 33/40 · .825

-1.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.1+0.1

Medium4/293.3-0.8

Low2/511.1-0.8

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

D. Kuemper

LAK · 14/20 · .700

-3.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.1-0.8

Medium4/101.0-3.0

Low0/300.4+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

98 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

TOR

31 shots

Final

98 shots

LAK

67 shots

TOR LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — TOR 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

A. Kempe

#9 · R · LAK

2 G · 2 A · 7 SOG · 20:02 on ice · +1

M. Knies

#23 · L · TOR

2 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:44 on ice · +1

A. Panarin

#10 · L · LAK

1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 22:19 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Apr 4

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:20 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 holds a 58% win probability according to the projection model, which forecasts a 2.2–2.7 goal game. The Kings' edge rests on play quality, not recent results.

At five-on-five, the Kings generate 52.0% expected goals and control 52.0% of shot attempts by Corsi—both 6 points clear of Toronto's 46.0% xG and 45.0% Corsi. This is sustained territorial dominance. Both teams show identical 1.002 PDO, so neither has benefited from goaltending luck or shooting variance offsetting this gap.

Both squads arrive depleted. Toronto has minus-8 goal differential over their last 10 games; Los Angeles is minus-5. The possession edge should matter more than either team's stumble.

Goaltending uncertainty adds a complication. D. Kuemper plays a back-to-back for the Kings; A. Stolarz does the same in Toronto. Either could resort to a backup or risk a tired starter.

Auston Matthews powers Toronto's offense at 1.10 xG per 60 minutes, having posted 17 goals and 13 assists, but he has not played in 23 days and is likely unavailable. John Tavares steps into a lead role at 0.91 xG/60, with 15 goals and 24 assists. His 12.4% shooting rate suggests he's running hot above his underlying volume.

Los Angeles leans on Alex Laferriere at 0.87 xG/60, with 16 goals and 18 assists. Jared Wright supplies depth at 0.83 xG/60, though he remains without a goal across four assists.

The model predicts the Kings' superior play should yield a tight, low-scoring win.

Data: MoneyPuck 5v5 models, NHL API

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 58%

58%

LAK

Model favorite

42%

58%

TOR50LAK

LAK by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score TOR 2.2–2.7 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

TOR← edge

edge →LAK

46.0%52.0%

45.0%52.0%

2.242.42

2.672.20

2.091.85

2.521.71

1.0021.002

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

TOR

4-4-2

-8 GD · 1d rest

LAK

3-3-4

-5 GD · 1d rest

1.002

TOR 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 46.0%.
The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
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. Stolarz 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 Maple Leafs are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

TOR

Expected in goal

A. Stolarz

back-to-back.875 last start

Backup Joseph Woll · -6.6 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.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.

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

TOR

Auston Matthews17G 13A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.6% sh

John Tavares15G 24A

0.91 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.4% 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