Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater

Breakdown · EDM at LAK

Kings shut out the Oilers, 1-0

FinalSat, Apr 11

EDMEdmonton Oilers0 LAKLos Angeles Kings1

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 0 · LAK 1

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:15 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 1–0 despite registering just 21 shots to Edmonton's 27. The Kings' efficiency was decisive: 0.078 expected goals per shot versus the Oilers' 0.051. Los Angeles generated 3.91 xG to Edmonton's 3.28—only a 54–46 split—but the gap in shot quality was vast.

A. Forsberg (LAK) was perfect, stopping all 27 shots. C. Ingram (EDM) faced 21 and gave up one—by A. Panarin from the high slot in the first period. Both goalies massively outperformed the underlying play: Forsberg was +3.28 above expected; Ingram was +2.91. The Kings underperformed their xG by 2.91; the Oilers by 3.28.

Los Angeles generated 6 high-danger chances; Edmonton had 5. Neither team converted—the Kings finished 0–6 on high-danger looks, the Oilers 0–5. The Oilers created higher-quality chances than their shot total suggests, but Los Angeles's efficiency proved decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 11

EDM

LAK

Kings shut out the Oilers, 1-0

Chances 3.3 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Kings earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

EDM

3.28

LAK

3.91

46% of the chances54%

The board read EDM 0, LAK 1. The chances read EDM 3.3, LAK 3.9.

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

Luck check

LAK

−2.9

goals above expected

LAK3.91 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

EDM3.28 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Oilers left 3.3 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 07:34LAKA. Panarin0–1

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

Where the shots came from

EDM

42 shots

Final

75 shots

LAK

33 shots

EDM LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 0 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

EDMLAK

0 / 5

1.14 xG

High danger

0 / 6

2.21 xG

0 / 16

1.74 xG

Medium

1 / 12

1.38 xG

0 / 43

0.40 xG

Low

0 / 32

0.32 xG

The Oilers went 0 for 5 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

A. Forsberg

+3.3

LAK · 27/27

A+

C. Ingram

+2.9

EDM · 20/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Kings shut out the Oilers, 1-0

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 9–9

07:34LAKA. Panarin0–1

2ndshots 7–6no goals

3rdshots 11–6no goals

score reads EDM–LAK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.91

LAK chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.9

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.020

LAK puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

43.9%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.28Expected goals3.91

LAK 54% of the chance quality

27Shots on goal21

5High-danger chances6

64All attempts (Corsi)50

Adjusted for score: EDM 60% · LAK 40%

Faceoffs · LAK won35%off64%neu65%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

EDM0 / 5 · 1.14 xG

LAK0 / 6 · 2.21 xG

Medium dangermid-range

EDM0 / 16 · 1.74 xG

LAK1 / 12 · 1.38 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

EDM0 / 43 · 0.40 xG

LAK0 / 32 · 0.32 xG

LAK went 0-for-6 from high danger on 2.21 expected goals — 2.2 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

EDM

0 G · 3.28 xG · -3.3

LAK

1 G · 3.91 xG · -2.9

012345

EDM finished -3.3 against expected, LAK -2.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

EDM

WRIST0/29

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/2

SNAP0/1

BACKHAND0/2

BAT0/2

POKE0/1

OTHER0/22

LAK

WRIST1/16

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/7

SNAP0/4

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/0

POKE0/0

OTHER0/17

EDM

LAK

Off the rush

0 G on 26

1.93 xG

1 G on 19

1.56 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.62 xG

0 G on 3

0.60 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: EDM went 0-for-29, LAK 1-for-16.

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

C. Ingram

EDM · 20/21 · .952

+2.9

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/62.2+2.2

Medium1/121.4+0.4

Low0/320.3+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 · 27/27 · 1.000

+3.3

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.1+1.1

Medium0/161.7+1.7

Low0/430.4+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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

EDM

42 shots

Final

75 shots

LAK

33 shots

EDM LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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

1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 18:23 on ice · +1

E. Bouchard

#2 · D · EDM

0 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 27:36 on ice · -1

C. McDavid

#97 · C · EDM

0 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 26:50 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Apr 11

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:13 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 Kings sit at 52% win probability in a projected 2.4–2.6 game. Essentially a coin flip.

Edmonton and Los Angeles generate identical 5v5 expected-goal rates at 52.0%, though Los Angeles edges the Oilers on volume (Corsi 52.0% vs. 50.0%). This parity masks a critical underlying fact: one team is running significantly under its luck. Edmonton's PDO is 0.982 — below replacement level, suggesting a cold-shooting Oilers club due for positive regression. Los Angeles, conversely, sits at 1.002, having outperformed expectation. Regression eventually arrives, and it favors Edmonton.

A. Forsberg on a back-to-back is worth monitoring; watch for a backup or a visibly fatigued starter. Edmonton's offensive punch comes from Connor McDavid (25 goals, 33 assists, 0.92 xG/60, 13.7% shooting), who generates chances at an elite rate, and Zach Hyman (14 goals, 13 assists, 1.23 xG/60, 13.0% shooting), the most efficient finisher on the team. Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere (16 goals, 18 assists, 0.87 xG/60, 9.9% shooting) as the primary scorer and Jared Wright (4 assists, 0.83 xG/60, 0 goals) as a playmaker still searching for his first goal.

Edmonton has a known defensive weakness in Jake Walman; Adrian Kempe is Los Angeles's vulnerable link. In a game this close, marginal execution and variance decide it.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 52%

52%

LAK

Model favorite

48%

52%

EDM50LAK

LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.4–2.6 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

EDM← edge

edge →LAK

52.0%52.0%

50.0%52.0%

2.642.42

2.472.20

2.131.85

2.291.71

0.9821.002

LAK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 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

EDM

6-3-1

+2 GD · 2d rest

LAK

5-2-3

+0 GD · 1d rest

0.982

EDM PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

A. Forsberg is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

EDM

Expected in goal

C. Ingram

2 days rest.800 last start

Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

LAK

Expected in goal

A. Forsberg

back-to-back.960 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

EDM

Zach Hyman14G 13A

1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh

Connor McDavid25G 33A

0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% 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