Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Thu, Apr 9 · the slate
Breakdown · VAN at LAK

Kings pull away from the Canucks

FinalThu, Apr 9
VANVancouver Canucks1LAKLos Angeles Kings4
The verdict · stolen

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.80–2.31 and won anyway.

VAN 1 · LAK 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:12 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 won 4-1, but the underlying numbers suggested Vancouver had the better night. The Canucks generated 2.80 expected goals to the Kings' 2.31 — a 55-45 edge in quality of chances. That advantage evaporated entirely when the puck dropped. Variance, not dominance, decided this game.

Los Angeles converted elite finishes. A. Forsberg made 24 saves on 25 shots (0.960 SV%), stopping 1.8 goals above expectation. That's the gap right there: a goaltender performing at historic efficiency levels. N. Tolopilo faced 26 shots, stopped 22 (0.846 SV%), and gave up 1.7 more than expected — not poor play, simply a difference in fortune.

The Kings' system centered on rush scoring. They generated 4 goals on 23 rush chances, an unusually high conversion rate. The Canucks, despite creating four high-danger chances to the Kings' one, converted zero of their five rebound opportunities. Vancouver wasted quality looks; Los Angeles finished theirs.

Shot distribution favored Los Angeles 26-25 — negligible. But the Kings won by three goals, a result that belongs in a variance ledger: elite finishing by Los Angeles, cold goaltending luck for Vancouver, and a rush-based system that connected when it mattered most.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 9
VAN
1
LAK
4

Kings pull away from the Canucks

Chances 2.8 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Canucks deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
VAN
2.80
LAK
2.31
55% of the chances45%

The board read VAN 1, LAK 4. The chances read VAN 2.8, LAK 2.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
+1.7
goals above expected
LAK2.31 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VAN2.80 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings scored 1.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:29LAKA. Kempe0–1
  2. P1 14:17VANM. Pettersson1–1
  3. P1 15:48LAKJ. Armia1–2
  4. P2 19:31LAKA. Kempe1–3
  5. P3 09:17LAKT. Moore1–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VAN
42 shots
1
Final
79 shots
LAK
37 shots
4
VAN attackLAK attack
VAN LAK Goal
42
shots · 1 in
37
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VANLAK
0 / 4
0.90 xG
High danger
0 / 1
0.21 xG
0 / 11
1.28 xG
Medium
3 / 12
1.41 xG
1 / 42
0.62 xG
Low
1 / 37
0.69 xG

The Canucks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Forsberg
+1.8
LAK · 24/25
F
N. Tolopilo
−1.7
VAN · 22/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings pull away from the Canucks

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 7–11
  1. 01:29LAKA. Kempe(B. Clarke, A. Panarin)0–1
  2. 14:17VANM. Pettersson(B. Boeser, L. Ohgren)1–1
  3. 15:48LAKJ. Armia(S. Laughton)1–2
2ndshots 9–12
  1. 19:31LAKA. Kempe(J. Edmundson, A. Panarin)1–3
3rdshots 9–3
  1. 09:17LAKT. Moore(A. Laferriere, M. Anderson)1–4

score reads VAN–LAK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.31
LAK chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.063
LAK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
46.7%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.80Expected goals2.31
VAN 55% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal26
4High-danger chances1
57All attempts (Corsi)50
Adjusted for score: VAN 58% · LAK 42%
Faceoffs · LAK won47%off57%neu80%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN0 / 4 · 0.90 xG
LAK0 / 1 · 0.21 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN0 / 11 · 1.28 xG
LAK3 / 12 · 1.41 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN1 / 42 · 0.62 xG
LAK1 / 37 · 0.69 xG

LAK went 3-for-12 from medium danger on 1.41 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
1 G · 2.80 xG · -1.8
LAK
4 G · 2.31 xG · +1.7
012345

VAN finished -1.8 against expected, LAK +1.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST0/24
SLAP1/4
TIP IN0/4
SNAP0/6
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/15
LAK
WRIST2/21
SLAP0/6
TIP IN1/5
SNAP0/1
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED1/1
OTHER0/13
VAN
LAK
Off the rush
1 G on 23
1.46 xG
4 G on 23
1.44 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.68 xG
0 G on 4
0.54 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 0-for-24, LAK 2-for-21. LAK scored 4 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
N. Tolopilo
VAN · 22/26 · .846
-1.7
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium3/121.4-1.6
Low1/370.7-0.3

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

A. Forsberg
LAK · 24/25 · .960
+1.8
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.9+0.9
Medium0/111.3+1.3
Low1/420.6-0.4

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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
VAN
42 shots
1
Final
79 shots
LAK
37 shots
4
VAN attackLAK attack
VAN LAK Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — VAN 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. Panarin
#10 · L · LAK
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 19:23 on ice · +2
A. Kempe
#9 · R · LAK
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 18:55 on ice · +2
M. Anderson
#44 · D · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:05 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 9
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:09 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 favors the Kings in this matchup, projecting a 2.2–2.8 goal range and placing them at 59% win probability. That confidence rests on legitimate underlying advantages and Vancouver's statistical fragility.

Los Angeles has been the sharper team in recent play. The Kings are 4–2–4 over their last 10 games, outpacing a Canucks team that sits at -23 goal differential over the same stretch. That gap reflects a larger pattern in the season numbers: at 5v5, the Kings command 52.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi, while Vancouver checks in at 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi. Territorial dominance translates to chance quality, and the Kings' territorial tilt shows in both metrics.

Where Vancouver becomes vulnerable is PDO—the combination of save percentage and shot-on-goal conversion rate. The Canucks sit at 0.974, running cold and primed for positive regression. That's the gap between underlying play (where they're outmatched) and actual outcomes. The Kings, conversely, are at 1.002, closer to sustainable levels, which compounds their advantage.

One wildcard: N. Tolopilo faces this game on back-to-back duty. Monitor whether Vancouver gets a backup or a tired starter in net. That single variable could shift the margin.

Los Angeles has done the work to earn the lean. Their 52.0% xG reflects consistent pressure, and Corsi at 52.0% suggests they'll control puck movement and territory again. The Canucks' regression window is open, and the Kings are built to exploit it.

Players to Watch

Vancouver

  • Filip Chytil — 1.03 xG/60, 3G 0A, 1 HD goals, 15.0% shooting
  • Drew O'Connor — 0.85 xG/60, 13G 11A, 3 HD goals, 11.8% shooting

Los Angeles

  • Alex Laferriere — 0.87 xG/60, 16G 18A, 2 HD goals, 9.9% shooting
  • Jared Wright — 0.83 xG/60, 0G 4A
What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 59%
59%
LAK
Model favorite
41%
59%
VAN50LAK

LAK by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.2–2.8 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
VAN← edge
edge →LAK
44.0%52.0%
46.0%52.0%
2.222.42
2.812.20
1.601.85
2.561.71
0.9741.002

LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.974 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
VAN
1-9-0
-23 GD · 1d rest
LAK
4-2-4
-4 GD · 2d rest
0.974
VAN 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 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.
  • N. Tolopilo is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Kings are the hotter team by points pace (4-2-4 in their last 10).
  • The Canucks are underwater at -23 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
VAN
Expected in goal
N. Tolopilo
back-to-back.931 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.

LAK
Expected in goal
A. Forsberg
2 days rest.935 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
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
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