Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
Breakdown · VGK at LAK · Preseason

Golden Knights beat the Kings 4-2

The verdict · earned

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

VGK 4 · LAK 2
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 10:33 PMxG: heuristicEdited 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

Vegas won this one 4-2, but their power play had almost nothing to do with it. The Golden Knights went 0-for-4 with the man advantage — a flat F, the same grade the Kings earned going 0-for-2 of their own. League average on the power play runs around 21%. Both special-teams units were nowhere near it, which means a two-goal final margin came almost entirely from play at even strength, not from the man advantage either team was handed.

The Golden Knights built their cushion early. V. Kmec opened the scoring late in the first period, assisted by M. Sapovaliv and M. Gatcomb, and R. Lavoie made it 2-0 less than a minute later on a feed from T. Laczynski and B. Bowman. Los Angeles spent the rest of the game chasing. A. Lee got the Kings on the board in the second period, set up by K. Connors and S. Perunovich, and L. Pederson tied it at 2-2 in the third on a goal from C. Guttman and J. Wright — a game that had tightened right back up heading into the final minutes.

It didn't stay tight. J. Hallum, unassisted apart from V. Kmec's helper, put Vegas back in front at 3-2 in the third period, and the turning point of the night came later in that period when Hallum's shot found the empty net — J. Demek picking up the assist — to make it 4-2 and put the game away. Hallum finished with a two-goal night that bookended the third period and buried the Kings' comeback bid.

The number that actually explains how Vegas pulled away, though, isn't a shot count — the league's play-by-play feed carries no shot data for this game, so there's no chance-quality read to lean on here. It's penalties. Vegas took just 3 minor infractions for 14 minutes, while Los Angeles took 5 for 20 — a real discipline edge that shows up in the report card as an A- for Vegas against a D- for the Kings. Normally that kind of gap hands the cleaner team a power-play field day. It didn't here: Vegas's own power play went cold anyway, going 0-for-4 on the extra looks that Kings penalties created. The Golden Knights won this game in spite of their special teams, not because of them — the discipline advantage mattered less as a scoring source and more as a sign of which team was skating in control and which was chasing the puck.

That's the real story underneath the 4-2 final: a game where neither power play worked, decided instead by two quick strikes to open it and Hallum closing it out late.

Three Stars

  • #59 J. Hallum (VGK) — 2G
  • #74 V. Kmec (VGK) — 1G, 1A
  • #13 J. Demek (VGK) — 1A
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Preseason · Sep 19
VGK
4
LAK
2

Golden Knights beat the Kings 4-2

Chances 0.0 – 0.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Golden Knights took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
VGK
0.00
LAK
0.00
100% of the chances0%

The board read VGK 4, LAK 2. The chances read VGK 0.0, LAK 0.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
+4.0
goals above expected
VGK0.00 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK0.00 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Golden Knights scored 4.0 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 18:40VGKV. Kmec1–0
  2. P1 19:24VGKR. Lavoie2–0
  3. P2 01:27LAKA. Lee2–1
  4. P3 12:06LAKL. Pederson2–2
  5. P3 14:29VGKJ. Hallum3–2
  6. P3 18:37VGKJ. HallumEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Report card
VGKLAK
Special teamsFF
DisciplineA-D-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why VGK won
  1. 01J. Hallum led the way
  2. 02The moment it turned
  3. 03Won the discipline battle
Why LAK lost
  1. 01Paraded to the penalty box
  2. 020-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.00 PP xG.
  3. 03Took 5 penalties for 20 PIM vs 3 for 14 on the other side.
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights beat the Kings 4-2

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 / 07 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 2–0
  1. 18:40VGKV. Kmec(M. Sapovaliv, M. Gatcomb)1–0
  2. 19:24VGKR. Lavoie(T. Laczynski, B. Bowman)2–0
2ndshots 0–1
  1. 01:27LAKA. Lee(K. Connors, S. Perunovich)2–1
3rdshots 2–1
  1. 12:06LAKL. Pederson(C. Guttman, J. Wright)2–2
  2. 14:29VGKJ. Hallum(V. Kmec)3–2
  3. 18:37VGKJ. Hallumempty net(J. Demek)4–2

score reads VGK–LAK

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
0.00
VGK chances
Goals their shots were worth
+4.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
Split by club

Who controlled the game

0.00Expected goals0.00
VGK 100% of the chance quality
0Shots on goal0
0High-danger chances0
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VGK
4 G · 0.00 xG · +4.0
LAK
2 G · 0.00 xG · +2.0
012345

VGK finished +4.0 against expected, LAK +2.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
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.
Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionVGKLAK
Special teams
▸Basis

VGK 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.00 PP xG.

LAK 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.00 PP xG.

F
48
F
48
Discipline
▸Basis

VGK Took 3 penalties for 14 PIM vs 5 for 20 on the other side.

LAK Took 5 penalties for 20 PIM vs 3 for 14 on the other side.

A-
90
D-
60
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGLAK

Paraded to the penalty box

Took 5 penalties for 20 minutes (opponent: 3 for 14).

Cut the stick infractions — the penalty differential is a controllable.

TACTICALVGK

The moment it turned

Jackson Hallum's shot in P3 swung the game.

STRENGTHVGK

J. Hallum led the way

2G — the game's first star.

WARNINGVGK

Power play came up empty

0-for-4 with the man advantage on 0.00 PP xG.

Rework PP entries and get a body to the net-front.

STRENGTHVGK

V. Kmec made a difference

1G 1A — the game's second star.

STRENGTHVGK

Won the discipline battle

Just 3 penalties for 14 minutes vs 5 for 20 on the other side.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Hallum
#59 · L · VGK
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · +2
V. Kmec
#74 · D · VGK
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · +1
J. Demek
#13 · C · VGK
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Sep 19
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The rates below are last season's; this exhibition will not count toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 19, 9:41 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 projects a 3.1–3.1 game with Vegas at 50% win probability — essentially a pick'em. But the underlying play tells a different story. Vegas owns 54.5% xG to LA's 51.4%, dominates possession at 52.3% Corsi, and is simply running cold right now. The Golden Knights sit at 0.983 PDO — converting below their shot quality — while LA sits at 1.001, right on the expected regression line. That gap is due to tighten in Vegas's favor.

The battle hinges on Brandon Saad. At 0.91 xG/60 and 3 goals, he's Vegas's most dangerous scorer at 5v5, the player LA must gameplan around. His 1 high-danger goal is modest against his underlying shot quality, and at 4.1% shooting, there's room for his conversion to normalize upward. If Saad breaks through, LA's shutdown assignment fails and Vegas's advantage widens.

Alex Laferriere is LA's counter-threat. Sixteen goals at 0.87 xG/60 means he's running hot — his 9.9% shooting is unsustainable. Vegas's defensive vulnerabilities create his opening. Rasmus Andersson allows 2.49 xGA/60 with 68 high-danger shots against this season, and that weakness sits directly in Laferriere's crosshairs. His 2 high-danger goals confirm he's generating elite volume; the question is whether the shooting percentage persists.

Secondary depth favors Vegas. Tomas Hertl delivers 0.88 xG/60, adding elite shot quality behind Saad's primary threat. Jared Wright sits at 0.83 xG/60 for LA with 0 goals — a volume generator who hasn't unlocked his scoring upside. Vegas's second line is sharper.

Defensively, Rasmus Andersson is the weak link for Vegas, and Adrian Kempe carries that load for LA. But Andersson's underlying numbers are worse, and he's facing LA's entire offensive depth. The Golden Knights own the underlying advantage and are due for regression to reverse their PDO deficit. LA needs Laferriere to stay ablaze and Andersson to implode further to steal this one. The numbers point to Vegas.

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

VGK 50%
50%
VGK
Model favorite
50%
50%
VGK50LAK

VGK by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VGK 3.1–3.1 LAK; 16% 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
VGK← edge
edge →LAK
54.5%51.4%
52.3%52.1%
3.263.10
2.712.92
3.222.68
2.952.90
0.9831.001

VGK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 1.001) says LAK has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
VGK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
LAK
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.983
VGK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.001
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALLAK

Shutdown Assignment: Kings

Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Saad (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Brandon Saad (3G, 0.91 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

TACTICALVGK

Shutdown Assignment: Golden Knights

Key matchup: Neutralize Alex Laferriere (16G, 0.87 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Alex Laferriere (16G, 0.87 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

WARNINGVGK

Exploitable minutes: Rasmus Andersson

Rasmus Andersson is on ice for 2.49 xGA/60 and 68 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Rasmus Andersson's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGLAK

Exploitable minutes: Adrian Kempe

Adrian Kempe is on ice for 2.47 xGA/60 and 43 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Adrian Kempe's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.5% 5v5 xG vs 51.4%.
Regression watch
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Golden Knights own the underlying play — 54.5% 5v5 xG vs 51.4%.
  • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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