STRENGTHLAK
A. Forsberg stole it
A. Forsberg stopped 24 of 25 (0.960) — +3.46 goals saved above expected in a 1-goal game.
The verdict · stolen
The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.89–4.46 and won anyway.
LAK 2 · ANA 1
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 25, 12:53 AMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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 2-1 against Anaheim in a game that existed almost entirely on the Ducks' terms. A. Forsberg stole what the numbers say should have belonged to California.
The Ducks held 61% of expected goals at five-on-five — 4.46 to 2.89 — and out-shot the Kings 25-19 in attempts. By any measure of play quality, Anaheim controlled this game. The Kings scored anyway.
A. Forsberg did not have a typical night. He faced 25 shots and stopped 24, but the math underneath reads differently: he saved 3.46 goals beyond what his workload should have allowed. Every Kings win where the goaltender stands 3.5 goals above expected performance is built on variance. This one was no exception.
The Ducks' finish was the problem. They generated scoring chances at a higher rate than Los Angeles — 0.074 expected goals per shot against 0.056 — and still surrendered twice as many goals as they scored. L. Dostal was steady (17 saves on 19 shots), but Anaheim's shooters could not capitalize. On high-danger chances, both teams tied 5-5; the difference was which goaltender's team finished.
J. Armia's goal at 19:37 of the first was the deciding moment: a snap shot from 30 feet, logged as a 12% chance by the model, 10 seconds after Los Angeles won a faceoff. The Ducks had owned every stretch of the game until that point. They did not recover.
The Kings took it 2-1 with only 39% of the expected goals. They won because their goaltender played a perfect game and their shooters found pockets when it mattered. Anaheim lost because it dominated the play and could not finish.
The goals
- ANA 0–1, 08:41 of the first. E. Procyszyn, tip-in from 2 feet, a 95% chance by the model (a rebound), past A. Forsberg. Assists: J. Caulfield, C. Pitre. 1 second after an ANA missed shot by J. Caulfield. Win probability moved 15 points.
- LAK 1–1, 18:56 of the first. A. Laferriere, backhander from 8 feet, an 11% chance by the model (a rebound), past L. Dostal. Assists: A. Lee. 2 seconds after a LAK missed shot by A. Lee. Win probability moved 18 points.
- LAK 2–1, 19:37 of the first. J. Armia, snap shot from 30 feet, a 12% chance by the model (off the rush), past L. Dostal. Assists: D. Doughty, B. Dumoulin. 10 seconds after a LAK faceoff win by E. Haula. Win probability moved 19 points.
What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.