Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Calgary Flames sweater
← Thu, Apr 16 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at CGY

A. Sergeev stands tall as the Flames edge the Kings

FinalThu, Apr 16
LAKLos Angeles Kings1CGYCalgary Flames3
The verdict · stolen

The Flames stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.63–1.94 and won anyway.

LAK 1 · CGY 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:02 PMxG: 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 had nearly twice the expected goal production and lost 3–1. At 5v5, they controlled 65% of expected goals (3.63 xG vs. 1.94), but the scoreboard told a different story.

Los Angeles underperformed their xG by 2.63 goals. Calgary overperformed by 1.06, scoring three goals on 1.94 expected chances. A. Sergeev's 0.964 save percentage (+2.63 vs. expected) accounted for much of the gap. A. Forsberg posted 0.895 on 17–19 stops.

The Flames held 42% of shot attempts (20–28 on goal) and punished their opportunities. On the rush, Calgary scored 2 goals on 19 rush chances. Los Angeles generated 6 rebound opportunities and scored on zero, a microcosm of the night.

Joel Farabee's backhander from the wing (P3, 19:20) was the turning point. High-danger chances split 2–4 in LA's favor, yet shot conversion and goaltending went the other way. This game was decided by execution and save percentage, not underlying metrics.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 16
LAK
1
CGY
3

A. Sergeev stands tall as the Flames edge the Kings

Chances 3.6 – 1.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
3.63
CGY
1.94
65% of the chances35%

The board read LAK 1, CGY 3. The chances read LAK 3.6, CGY 1.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CGY
+1.1
goals above expected
CGY1.94 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK3.63 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings left 2.6 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. P2 05:21CGYM. FrostPP0–1
  2. P2 06:43LAKQ. Byfield1–1
  3. P3 06:08CGYZ. Parekh1–2
  4. P3 19:20CGYJ. FarabeeEN1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
44 shots
1
Final
74 shots
CGY
30 shots
3
LAK attackCGY attack
LAK CGY Goal
44
shots · 1 in
30
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKCGY
1 / 4
0.83 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.53 xG
0 / 21
2.27 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.04 xG
0 / 45
0.52 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.37 xG

High-danger looks: LAK 1 of 4, CGY 1 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
A. Sergeev
+2.6
CGY · 27/28
C
A. Forsberg
−0.1
LAK · 17/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

A. Sergeev stands tall as the Flames edge the Kings

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 10–2no goals
    2ndshots 10–9
    1. 05:21CGYM. Frostpower play(M. Gridin, M. Coronato)0–1
    2. 06:43LAKQ. Byfield(T. Moore, A. Laferriere)1–1
    3rdshots 8–9
    1. 06:08CGYZ. Parekh(Z. Whitecloud, R. Strome)1–2
    2. 19:20CGYJ. Farabeeempty net(Z. Whitecloud)1–3

    score reads LAK–CGY

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    1.94
    CGY chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +1.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.048
    CGY puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    40.7%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.63Expected goals1.94
    LAK 65% of the chance quality
    28Shots on goal20
    4High-danger chances2
    70All attempts (Corsi)48
    Adjusted for score: LAK 60% · CGY 40%
    Faceoffs · CGY won59%off50%neu54%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    LAK1 / 4 · 0.83 xG
    CGY1 / 2 · 0.53 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    LAK0 / 21 · 2.27 xG
    CGY1 / 11 · 1.04 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    LAK0 / 45 · 0.52 xG
    CGY1 / 35 · 0.37 xG

    LAK went 0-for-21 from medium danger on 2.27 expected goals — 2.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    LAK
    1 G · 3.63 xG · -2.6
    CGY
    3 G · 1.94 xG · +1.1
    01234

    LAK finished -2.6 against expected, CGY +1.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    LAK
    WRIST1/21
    SNAP0/9
    BACKHAND0/8
    TIP IN0/2
    SLAP0/4
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/26
    CGY
    WRIST0/15
    SNAP1/6
    BACKHAND1/6
    TIP IN1/2
    SLAP0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/18
    LAK
    CGY
    Off the rush
    1 G on 30
    2.65 xG
    2 G on 19
    1.51 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 6
    0.74 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.14 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-21, CGY 0-for-15. CGY 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
    A. Forsberg
    LAK · 17/19 · .895
    -0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/20.5-0.5
    Medium1/111.0+0.0
    Low1/350.4-0.6

    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. Sergeev
    CGY · 27/28 · .964
    +2.6
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/40.8-0.2
    Medium0/212.3+2.3
    Low0/450.5+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

    74 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    LAK
    44 shots
    1
    Final
    74 shots
    CGY
    30 shots
    3
    LAK attackCGY attack
    LAK CGY Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, CGY 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
    Z. Whitecloud
    #28 · D · CGY
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:30 on ice · +2
    Z. Parekh
    #19 · D · CGY
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:10 on ice · +2
    Q. Byfield
    #55 · R · LAK
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 21:51 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Apr 16
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:00 PMEdited 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 projects a 2.5-2.4 Kings victory with Los Angeles at 53% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find. Los Angeles is 7-1-2 in their last 10 while Calgary sits at -10 goal differential over the same stretch, granting the Kings a clear form edge.

    The underlying gap is possession. Los Angeles owns 52.0% expected goals at 5v5 against Calgary's 47.0%, and that advantage manifests territorially: the Kings control play at 52.0% Corsi, which means they dictate where hockey happens. A 5-point xG edge compounds over time. Calgary's 0.985 PDO reveals they've run cold, and positive regression is due.

    Goaltending uncertainty cuts both ways. D. Wolf is on a back-to-back for Los Angeles and D. Kuemper for Calgary, either of whom could start a backup or take the net tired.

    Offensively, Los Angeles holds a modest edge despite talent parity. Alex Laferriere leads the Kings with 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes, 16 goals, 18 assists, and 2 high-danger goals on 9.9% shooting. Blake Coleman generates nearly identically for Calgary—0.89 xG/60, 16 goals, 12 assists, 2 high-danger goals—but his 11.4% shooting efficiency masks a volume disadvantage. The Kings' puck control means Laferriere will see more ice in genuine scoring opportunities. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0 goals, 4 assists) is a depth option; Matt Coronato (0.80 xG/60, 10 goals, 16 assists) has underperformed relative to his volume with just 6.6% shooting.

    Los Angeles's territorial dominance is the tactical story. They will spend more time in Calgary's zone and out-shoot them. Calgary's cold PDO is their escape hatch: variance favors underperformers in tight contests. Adrian Kempe is Los Angeles's defensive liability; Matt Coronato shoulders Calgary's defensive burden.

    This game hinges on whether the underlying metrics—which favor Los Angeles—survive goaltender uncertainty. Fifty-three percent is fair.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 53%
    53%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    53%
    47%
    LAK50CGY

    LAK by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.4 CGY; 19% 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
    LAK← edge
    edge →CGY
    52.0%47.0%
    52.0%49.0%
    2.422.36
    2.202.66
    1.851.76
    1.712.15
    1.0020.985

    LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 vs 0.985) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    LAK
    7-1-2
    +7 GD · 1d rest
    CGY
    3-5-2
    -10 GD · 1d rest
    1.002
    LAK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.985
    CGY 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 47.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Kings own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.0%.
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 52.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • D. Wolf is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Kings are the hotter team by points pace (7-1-2 in their last 10).
    • The Flames are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Flames' PDO is 0.985 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    LAK
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    back-to-back.840 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.

    CGY
    Expected in goal
    D. Wolf
    back-to-back.946 last start
    Backup Dustin Wolf · -1.8 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
    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
    CGY
    Blake Coleman16G 12A
    0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.4% sh
    Matt Coronato10G 16A
    0.80 xG/60 · 0 HD · 6.6% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page