Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Mon, Apr 6 · the slate
Breakdown · NSH at LAK

Kings edge the Predators in a shootout

Final / OTMon, Apr 6
NSHNashville Predators2LAKLos Angeles Kings3
The verdict · stolen

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.92–3.06 and won anyway.

NSH 2 · LAK 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:40 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

Los Angeles won by scoreboard but lost the underlying play. The Kings generated 3.06 expected goals while allowing the Predators 3.92—Nashville controlled 56% of expected goals at 5v5, yet left with zero points. This was a heist.

The shot attempt count mirrored the xG gap: Predators 31, Kings 28. High-danger chances split 5–6 in Nashville's favor.

A. Forsberg was the theft's architect. The Kings' goaltender saved 1.92 goals above expected on 31 shots, posting a 0.935 save percentage. That margin alone explained the gap between what the game predicted and what the scoreboard showed.

Nashville's J. Saros was equally effective—he stopped 1.06 goals above expected—but his teammates squandered him. The Predators underperformed their xG by 1.92 goals, wasting quality chances. They had 5 rebound opportunities; only 1 converted.

The Kings compensated for their underlying disadvantage with ruthlessness on the rush, scoring 2 goals on 32 rush chances—a rate that proved decisive when Adrian Kempe's snap shot from the doorstep ended the shootout.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · SO · Apr 6
NSH
2
LAK
3

Kings edge the Predators in a shootout

Chances 3.9 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
NSH
3.92
LAK
3.06
56% of the chances44%

The board read NSH 2, LAK 3. The chances read NSH 3.9, LAK 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
−0.1
goals above expected
LAK3.06 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH3.92 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Predators left 1.9 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 05:36LAKJ. Armia0–1
  2. P2 04:29NSHS. StamkosPP1–1
  3. P2 13:57LAKS. Laughton1–2
  4. P3 04:18NSHR. Josi2–2
  5. SO 00:00LAKA. KempePP2–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NSH
52 shots
2
Final
99 shots
LAK
47 shots
3
NSH attackLAK attack
NSH LAK Goal
52
shots · 2 in
47
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NSHLAK
1 / 6
1.40 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.08 xG
0 / 18
1.97 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.37 xG
1 / 44
0.54 xG
Low
0 / 46
0.62 xG

High-danger looks: NSH 1 of 6, LAK 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Forsberg
+1.9
LAK · 29/31
B+
J. Saros
+1.1
NSH · 26/28
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings edge the Predators 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 4–12
  1. 05:36LAKJ. Armia0–1
2ndshots 19–11
  1. 04:29NSHS. Stamkospower play(R. O'Reilly, R. Josi)1–1
  2. 13:57LAKS. Laughton(J. Wright)1–2
3rdshots 6–3
  1. 04:18NSHR. Josi(F. Forsberg, E. Haula)2–2
OTshots 2–2no goals
    SO
    1. 00:00LAKA. Kempepower play2–2

    score reads NSH–LAK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.06
    LAK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.002
    LAK puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    48.5%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.92Expected goals3.06
    NSH 56% of the chance quality
    31Shots on goal28
    6High-danger chances5
    68All attempts (Corsi)64
    Adjusted for score: NSH 53% · LAK 47%
    Faceoffs · LAK won55%off63%neu58%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    NSH1 / 6 · 1.40 xG
    LAK1 / 5 · 1.08 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    NSH0 / 18 · 1.97 xG
    LAK1 / 13 · 1.37 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    NSH1 / 44 · 0.54 xG
    LAK0 / 46 · 0.62 xG

    NSH went 0-for-18 from medium danger on 1.97 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    NSH
    2 G · 3.92 xG · -1.9
    LAK
    3 G · 3.06 xG · -0.1
    012345

    NSH finished -1.9 against expected, LAK -0.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    NSH
    WRIST0/35
    SLAP2/9
    TIP IN0/2
    BACKHAND0/2
    SNAP0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/19
    LAK
    WRIST2/30
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN0/7
    BACKHAND0/3
    SNAP0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/20
    NSH
    LAK
    Off the rush
    1 G on 30
    3.10 xG
    2 G on 32
    2.68 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 5
    0.50 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.21 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: NSH went 0-for-35, LAK 2-for-30. 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. Saros
    NSH · 26/28 · .929
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.1+0.1
    Medium1/131.4+0.4
    Low0/460.6+0.6

    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 · 29/31 · .935
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/61.4+0.4
    Medium0/182.0+2.0
    Low1/440.5-0.5

    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

    99 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    NSH
    52 shots
    2
    Final
    99 shots
    LAK
    47 shots
    3
    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
    R. Josi
    #59 · D · NSH
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 28:09 on ice · +1
    R. O'Reilly
    #90 · C · NSH
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:10 on ice
    S. Stamkos
    #91 · C · NSH
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 21:38 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Apr 6
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:37 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 can't pick a winner. Nashville's projected to score 2.3-2.6 goals; LA is rated a 55% favorite — which is barely more than a coin flip. Vegas sees these teams as genuine equals.

    The model's right. Los Angeles owns the underlying play by three percentage points in expected goals (52.0% to 49.0%) and shot attempts (52.0% to 50.0%). That's enough for a modeling edge, not a certainty. Nashville's PDO of 0.992 suggests some regression risk (shooting and save parity compressed), while LA's 1.002 sits right at even. Small margins all around.

    The goaltending matchup adds a wrinkle. J. Saros is on a back-to-back — whether Nashville goes to a backup or rolls with a tired starter could tip the balance.

    Zachary L'Heureux is Nashville's fastest-developing threat — 0.85 xG per 60 minutes with a 16.0% shooting rate and four goals already. He's doing it efficiently. Filip Forsberg is the slower burn: 0.80 xG per 60 with 23 goals, but only 17 assists, suggesting he's finishing at 13.6% to compensate for looks that aren't always pristine.

    For Los Angeles, Alex Laferriere matches L'Heureux's per-60 production (0.87 xG) but has distributed his 16 goals more evenly (18 assists). He's the talent edge in this game. Jared Wright is the role player here — playmaker on 0.83 xG per 60 with only four assists, meaning he's generating chances others aren't converting.

    Nashville's structural vulnerability is obvious: zero percent of goals come from high-danger areas, and zero percent from rebounds. The same applies to LA. Both teams are living dangerously — relying on skills-dependent play instead of dirty-area volume.

    Jonathan Marchessault (NSH) and Adrian Kempe (LAK) are the defensive weak links in this matchup. Neither is likely to decide this alone.

    This is a game where the better team (LA by three points in xG%) has a built-in advantage, but neither side has enough separation to feel safe taking them. The goaltending situation — whether Saros is fresh or fatigued — is the only meaningful variable that could expand LA's thin edge.

    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
    7-3-0
    +8 GD · 1d rest
    LAK
    4-2-4
    -2 GD · 2d 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%.
    • J. Saros is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    NSH
    Expected in goal
    J. Saros
    back-to-back.889 last start
    Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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.

    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    2 days rest.700 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