Backcheck
Recap · EDM at LAK

Kings shut out the Oilers, 1-0

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

By the ModelJul 12, 11:15 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
EDM
Edmonton Oilers
0
Home
LAK
Los Angeles Kings
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.28Expected goals3.91
54% share for the better side
27Shot attempts (SOG)21
5High-danger chances6
64Corsi (all attempts)50
Score-adjusted: 60% / 40%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. IngramEDM
+2.9
A. ForsbergLAK
+3.3

EDM finished -3.3 against expected, LAK -2.9 — A. Forsberg (LAK) saved 3.3 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
A. Panarin
#10 · L · LAK
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 18:23 TOI · +1
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
0 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 27:36 TOI · -1
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
0 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 26:50 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • EDM generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • C. Ingram (EDM) stopped 2.9 goals above expected.
  • LAK generated far more dangerous chances — 0.078 xG/shot vs 0.051. Quality over quantity.
  • LAK couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • EDM couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • LAK created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • EDM created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • LAK underperformed xG by 2.9 — wasted quality chances.
  • EDM underperformed xG by 3.3 — wasted quality chances.
  • C. Ingram (EDM) saved 2.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · EDM at LAK · 4:00 PM ET

Oilers at Kings: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 11:13 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
LAK
Model favorite
48%
52%
EDM50LAK

LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score EDM 2.42.6 LAK; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

EDM← edge
edge →LAK
52.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
50.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.64xGF / 602.42
2.47xGA / 602.20
2.13Goals for / gm1.85
2.29Goals against / gm1.71
0.982PDO — luck, not skill1.002

LAK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.982 vs 1.002) says LAK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters