Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Sat, Oct 3 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at SJS

Sharks steal one from the Kings against the run of play

Final / OTSat, Oct 3
LAKLos Angeles Kings4SJSSan Jose Sharks5
The verdict · stolen

The Sharks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.11–2.13 and won anyway.

LAK 4 · SJS 5
◆ By the ModelOct 4, 12:54 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

San Jose beat Los Angeles 5-4 in overtime. The Sharks won on the rush while the Kings dominated the middle distance and lost anyway.

The Kings controlled expected goals 66-34% at 5v5—a dominant performance that should have produced a victory. Instead, San Jose pulled off a heist. Los Angeles created better chances at 0.060 expected goals per shot, while the Sharks managed only 0.045, yet both teams ended with four regulation goals.

San Jose was lethal in transition. The Sharks scored four goals on 21 rush chances. The Kings also scored four on 34 rush attempts, but San Jose's efficiency in open ice—despite a far smaller workload—was the story.

Y. Askarov anchored San Jose's steal. The Sharks' goalie saved 32 of 36 shots (0.889 save percentage), backing his team's thin claims on the scoreboard. A. Forsberg allowed five goals on 25 shots, giving up 2.9 more than expected.

A. Panarin tied it 4-4 with a slap shot from 30 feet at 15:00 of the third, only to have I. Chernyshov end it in sudden death, handing San Jose a win the underlying numbers say it had no business taking.

A. Kempe, Q. Byfield, and E. Haula scored for the Kings in regulation. T. Toffoli, K. Sherwood, N. Allan, and I. Chernyshov scored for San Jose. The power plays cancelled out: Los Angeles had the stronger one, but both teams found the back of the net with the man advantage.

The goals

  • LAK 1–0, 15:50 of the first on the power play. A. Kempe, slap shot from 21 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Assists: A. Panarin, B. Clarke. Win probability moved 18 points.
  • SJS 1–1, 01:48 of the second on the power play. T. Toffoli, tip-in from 4 feet, a 32% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Forsberg. Assists: I. Stenberg, M. Celebrini. Win probability moved 19 points.
  • SJS 1–2, 09:52 of the second. K. Sherwood, snap shot from 34 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Forsberg. 1 second after a LAK giveaway by E. Haula. Win probability moved 21 points.
  • SJS 1–3, 12:32 of the second. N. Allan, wrist shot from 37 feet, a 6% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Forsberg. Assists: M. Misa, I. Chernyshov. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • LAK 2–3, 19:58 of the second on the power play. Q. Byfield, wrist shot from 27 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Assists: M. Zuccarello, A. Kempe. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • SJS 2–4, 04:08 of the third. I. Chernyshov, backhander from 19 feet, a 9% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Forsberg. Assists: T. Toffoli, J. Trouba. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • LAK 3–4, 10:21 of the third. E. Haula, tip-in from 12 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Assists: E. Gustafsson, B. Clarke. Win probability moved 12 points.
  • LAK 4–4, 15:00 of the third. A. Panarin, slap shot from 30 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Assists: Q. Byfield. 3 seconds after a SJS giveaway by N. Allan. Win probability moved 36 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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 3
LAK
4
SJS
5

Sharks steal one from the Kings against the run of play

Chances 4.1 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Kings deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
4.11
SJS
2.13
66% of the chances34%

The board read LAK 4, SJS 5. The chances read LAK 4.1, SJS 2.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+2.9
goals above expected
SJS2.13 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK4.11 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sharks scored 2.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+36
win-probability points
11% → 48% for LAK
SJS 100%the game, start to finish
LAK 100%P1 · P2 · P3
LAKP3 15:00

A. Panarin makes it 4–4.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 15:50LAKA. KempePP10%1–0
  2. P2 01:48SJST. ToffoliPP32%1–1
  3. P2 09:52SJSK. Sherwood10%1–2
  4. P2 12:32SJSN. Allan6%1–3
  5. P2 19:58LAKQ. ByfieldPP11%2–3
  6. P3 04:08SJSI. Chernyshov9%2–4
  7. P3 10:21LAKE. Haula8%3–4
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
58 shots
4
Final
93 shots
SJS
35 shots
5
LAK attackSJS attack
LAK SJS Goal
58
shots · 4 in
35
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKSJS
0 / 3
0.62 xG
High danger
1 / 1
0.31 xG
4 / 29
2.95 xG
Medium
3 / 16
1.46 xG
0 / 37
0.54 xG
Low
0 / 30
0.35 xG

The Kings went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
Y. Askarov
+0.1
SJS · 32/36 · 62:38
Best save · a 23% chance, wrist from 5 ft · P3 19:52
F
A. Forsberg
−2.9
LAK · 20/25 · 62:12
Best save · a 16% chance, wrist from 22 ft · P2 04:11
Best skater on the ice
A+
LAK
A. Panarin
L · impact 2.73
22:21
Ice time
1–1
G – A
0.54
Own xG
71%
xG share
Impact · top 4
A. Panarin2.7A+
Q. Byfield2.6A+
A. Kempe2.6A+
I. Chernyshov1.9A
Report card
LAKSJS
OffenseAC-
DefenseB-F
TransitionAF
Special teamsA+A+
GoaltendingFC
DisciplineB-C-
LuckFA-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why SJS won
  1. 01Won against the run of play
  2. 02Dangerous off the rush
  3. 03Power play cashed in
Why LAK lost
  1. 01A. Forsberg couldn't make the stop
  2. 02Deserved a better fate
  3. 03Rush defense leaked all night
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks steal one from the Kings against the run of play

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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 10–6
  1. 15:50LAKA. Kempepower play(A. Panarin, B. Clarke)1–0

    Slap shot from 21 feet, a 10% chance (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Win probability moved 18 points.On the ice: D. Doughty, B. Dumoulin, E. Haula, J. Armia, T. Moore · against D. Orlov, T. Toffoli, L. Cagnoni, I. Chernyshov, M. Misa

2ndshots 10–9
  1. 01:48SJST. Toffolipower play(I. Stenberg, M. Celebrini)1–1

    Tip-in from 4 feet, a 32% chance (off the rush), past A. Forsberg. Win probability moved 19 points.On the ice: B. Goodrow, J. Trouba, K. Sherwood, N. Allan, Z. Ostapchuk · against D. Doughty, B. Dumoulin, A. Kempe, A. Panarin, Q. Byfield

  2. 09:52SJSK. Sherwood1–2

    Snap shot from 34 feet, a 10% chance (off the rush), past A. Forsberg. 1s after a LAK giveaway by E. Haula. Win probability moved 21 points.On the ice: D. Nurse, A. Wennberg, M. Kesselring, C. Graf, I. Stenberg · against B. Dumoulin, C. Ceci, A. Kempe, A. Panarin, Q. Byfield

  3. 12:32SJSN. Allan(M. Misa, I. Chernyshov)1–3

    Wrist shot from 37 feet, a 6% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past A. Forsberg. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: B. Goodrow, D. Nurse, K. Sherwood, M. Kesselring, Z. Ostapchuk · against C. Perry, D. Doughty, B. Dumoulin, S. Laughton, A. Turcotte

  4. 19:58LAKQ. Byfieldpower play(M. Zuccarello, A. Kempe)2–3

    Wrist shot from 27 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: D. Doughty, E. Haula, J. Edmundson, J. Armia, T. Moore · against T. Toffoli, J. Trouba, N. Allan, I. Chernyshov, M. Misa

3rdshots 15–8
  1. 04:08SJSI. Chernyshov(T. Toffoli, J. Trouba)2–4

    Backhander from 19 feet, a 9% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past A. Forsberg. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: M. Marchment, W. Smith, M. Celebrini · against E. Haula, J. Armia, C. Ceci, T. Moore, M. Anderson

  2. 10:21LAKE. Haula(E. Gustafsson, B. Clarke)3–4

    Tip-in from 12 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. Win probability moved 12 points.

  3. 15:00LAKA. Panarin(Q. Byfield)4–4

    Slap shot from 30 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past Y. Askarov. 3s after a SJS giveaway by N. Allan. Win probability moved 36 points.

OTshots 1–2no goals

    score reads LAK–SJS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.13
    SJS chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +2.9
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.027
    SJS puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    40.5%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.11Expected goals2.13
    LAK 66% of the chance quality
    36Shots on goal25
    3High-danger chances1
    69All attempts (Corsi)47
    Adjusted for score: LAK 61% · SJS 39%
    Faceoffs · SJS won48%off50%neu41%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    LAK0 / 3 · 0.62 xG
    SJS1 / 1 · 0.31 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    LAK4 / 29 · 2.95 xG
    SJS3 / 16 · 1.46 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    LAK0 / 37 · 0.54 xG
    SJS0 / 30 · 0.35 xG

    SJS went 3-for-16 from medium danger on 1.46 expected goals — 1.5 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    LAK
    4 G · 4.11 xG · -0.1
    SJS
    5 G · 2.13 xG · +2.9
    0123456

    LAK finished -0.1 against expected, SJS +2.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    LAK
    WRIST1/35
    TIP IN1/10
    SLAP2/7
    SNAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/10
    SJS
    WRIST1/23
    TIP IN1/5
    SLAP0/2
    SNAP1/1
    BACKHAND1/2
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/13
    LAK
    SJS
    Off the rush
    4 G on 34
    3.01 xG
    4 G on 21
    1.77 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 5
    0.49 xG
    0 G on 2
    0.15 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-35, SJS 1-for-23. LAK scored 4 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 · 20/25 · .800
    started · 62:12
    -2.9
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    Attempts faced
    35
    Avg chance faced
    6.1%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.886 vs 0.939
    Rebounds allowed
    2
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/10.3-0.7
    Medium3/161.5-1.5
    Low0/180.3+0.3
    Shorthanded1/40.4-0.6
    Tips & deflections1/50.5-0.5
    The save
    16% chance stopped, a wrist from 22 ft · P2 04:11
    The one to have back
    6% chance went in, a wrist from 37 ft · P2 12:32

    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

    Y. Askarov
    SJS · 32/36 · .889
    started · 62:38
    +0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    Attempts faced
    59
    Avg chance faced
    7.0%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.932 vs 0.930
    Rebounds allowed
    5
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.6+0.6
    Medium4/293.0-1.1
    Low0/270.5+0.5
    Shorthanded2/100.7-1.3
    Tips & deflections1/100.7-0.3
    The save
    23% chance stopped, a wrist from 5 ft · P3 19:52
    The one to have back
    8% chance went in, a tip-in from 12 ft · P3 10:21

    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

    Every skater who dressed

    Who played

    Rated on what they produced and how fast

    Best skater on the ice by our rating: A. Panarin (LAK), 22:21 of ice, 1-1, 71% of the expected goals while he was out.

    LAK18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    A. PanarinL22:211-171A+
    Q. ByfieldR22:001-178A+
    A. KempeR22:001-171A+
    B. ClarkeD20:040-281A
    E. GustafssonD17:150-172A
    E. HaulaL14:451-052B
    M. ZuccarelloR18:380-168B
    C. PerryR9:570-083B
    J. ArmiaR13:270-063B
    C. CeciD17:380-062C
    D. DoughtyD20:120-068C
    J. EdmundsonD13:190-068C
    S. LaughtonC13:300-056C
    T. MooreL16:070-048D
    B. DumoulinD14:560-055D
    A. LaferriereR16:450-041D
    A. TurcotteC15:130-037F
    M. AndersonD16:250-014F
    SJS18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    I. ChernyshovL15:432-115A
    T. ToffoliC14:311-115A
    K. SherwoodL11:491-047A
    I. StenbergL15:370-162B
    N. AllanD15:591-042B
    M. MisaC14:140-114B
    J. TroubaD20:490-142C
    M. CelebriniC21:020-138C
    Z. OstapchukC10:140-045C
    A. WennbergC18:430-060C
    W. SmithC18:410-037D
    L. CagnoniD21:210-017D
    C. GrafR16:430-048D
    B. GoodrowC11:550-041D
    M. MarchmentL16:230-038D
    M. KesselringD20:350-041F
    D. NurseD21:510-028F
    D. OrlovD18:130-022F

    xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

    Scratched, LAK: A. Lee, S. Helenius. Scratched, SJS: T. Dellandrea, B. Leason, S. Dickinson. Referees Chris Schlenker and Michael Markovic; linesmen Tommy Hughes and Travis Toomey.

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionLAKSJS
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    LAK Created 4.11 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.62 xG) and 34 rush shots (3.01 xG).

    SJS Created 2.13 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 1 high-danger shots (0.31 xG) and 21 rush shots (1.77 xG).

    A
    96
    C-
    70
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    LAK Allowed 2.13 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 1 high-danger shots (0.31 xG) and 21 rush shots (1.77 xG).

    SJS Allowed 4.11 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.62 xG) and 34 rush shots (3.01 xG).

    B-
    80
    F
    54
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    LAK Rush shots 34–21, rush xG 3.01–1.77 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    SJS Rush shots 21–34, rush xG 1.77–3.01 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    A
    94
    F
    56
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    LAK 2-for-3 on the power play (67%; league ≈21%) with 0.41 PP xG.

    SJS 1-for-2 on the power play (50%; league ≈21%) with 0.42 PP xG.

    A+
    100
    A+
    100
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    LAK -2.87 goals saved above expected on 25 shots against.

    SJS +0.11 goals saved above expected on 36 shots against.

    F
    46
    C
    76
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

    LAK Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

    SJS Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.

    B-
    80
    C-
    70
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    LAK Finishing -0.11 goals vs xG plus -2.87 GSAx of save luck = -2.98 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    SJS Finishing +1.87 goals vs xG plus +0.11 GSAx of save luck = +1.98 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    F
    51
    A-
    91
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    WARNINGSJS

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 34 rush shots worth 3.01 xG (4 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

    Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

    SURPRISESJS

    Won against the run of play

    The Sharks took it 5-4 in overtime with only 34% of expected goals (2.13–4.11).

    STRENGTHLAK

    Dangerous off the rush

    4 goals on 34 rush shots worth 3.01 xG.

    WARNINGLAK

    A. Forsberg couldn't make the stop

    A. Forsberg allowed 5 on 25 shots (0.800) — 2.87 goals worse than expected.

    Reassess the crease rotation before the next start.

    WARNINGLAK

    Deserved a better fate

    The Kings controlled 66% of expected goals (4.11 to 2.13) and still lost — the process was there, the finish wasn't.

    Change nothing structurally — this loss was variance, not process.

    WARNINGLAK

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 21 rush shots worth 1.77 xG (4 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

    Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

    93 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    LAK
    58 shots
    4
    Final
    93 shots
    SJS
    35 shots
    5
    LAK attackSJS attack
    LAK SJS Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, SJS 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
    I. Chernyshov
    #92 · L · SJS
    2 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:43 on ice · +3
    A. Panarin
    #10 · L · LAK
    1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:21 on ice
    A. Kempe
    #9 · R · LAK
    1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 22:00 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Oct 3
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelOct 3, 9:09 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

    LA and San Jose project to 3.2 and 3.1 expected goals respectively, with the Kings at 52% win probability—a true coin flip.

    LA controls shot attempts at 50.6%, which translates to territorial pressure and offensive volume. Both teams run unlucky on combined shooting and save luck: the Kings at 0.860, the Sharks at 0.941. Both are due for positive regression.

    Goaltending creates a wedge. D. Kuemper carries the Kings' weight and is struggling: -4.7 goals above expected in his last outing, a 72.4% save percentage, and a 57.1% high-danger save rate. Both teams thrive from the slot—LA has 5 goals on 44 attempts (11%), San Jose 10 on 47 (21%)—but Kuemper's weakness means the Sharks' efficiency compounds. Y. Askarov has been sharper: +0.7 goals above expected in his last game, 88.5% save percentage, and a +5.5 season advantage on expected save value.

    Slot dominance decides the night. LA's shot-attempt edge gives them volume there; San Jose's superior finishing (21% conversion) and Askarov's reliability seal the advantage. The Sharks' edge is small but enough.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    LAK 52%
    52%
    LAK
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    LAK50SJS

    LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 3.2–3.1 SJS; 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
    LAK← edge
    edge →SJS
    44.5%45.5%
    50.6%45.1%
    2.793.29
    3.473.95
    4.004.00
    8.003.00
    0.8600.941

    SJS holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.860 vs 0.941) says SJS has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 1
    LAK
    0-1-0
    -4 GD · 2d rest
    SJS
    1-0-0
    +1 GD · 1d rest
    0.860
    LAK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.941
    SJS PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    TACTICAL

    The Kings drive Corsi at 50.6%

    The Kings drive Corsi at 50.6% — expect territorial tilt.

    TACTICALLAK

    Goalie Weakness: Kings

    Below-average on high-danger saves. Prioritize quality over quantity.

    Their goalie (Darcy Kuemper) leaks HD — 57.1% HD SV. Get to the slot.

    WARNINGSJS

    Regression watch: Sharks

    The Sharks' PDO is 0.941 — running cold, due for positive regression.

    Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

    WARNINGLAK

    Regression watch: Kings

    The Kings' PDO is 0.860 — running cold, due for positive regression.

    Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

    Where the edges live
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 50.6% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Sharks' PDO is 0.941 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    • The Kings' PDO is 0.860 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Kings drive Corsi at 50.6% — expect territorial tilt.
    • Goalie matchup: D. Kuemper (-4.7 GSAx in 1 GP, 72.4% SV) vs Y. Askarov (+0.7 GSAx in 1 GP, 88.5% SV).
    • Y. Askarov has the GSAx edge — 5.5 goals above his counterpart this season.
    • The Sharks' PDO is 0.941 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    LAK
    vs COL · Wed, Sep 30
    Expected in goal
    D. Kuemper
    2 days rest.724 last start59:25 played
    Forwards · 12
    • A. Kempe19:23
    • A. Panarin20:16
    • T. Moore14:56
    • A. Laferriere15:31
    • A. Turcotte15:35
    • S. Laughton15:07
    • M. Zuccarello17:59
    • J. Armia12:55
    • A. Lee07:56
    • Q. Byfield18:59
    • E. Haula15:26
    • S. Helenius06:59
    Defence · 6
    • B. Dumoulin16:30
    • C. Ceci19:24
    • J. Edmundson15:34
    • D. Doughty22:41
    • M. Anderson19:21
    • B. Clarke18:57
    SJS
    vs FLA · Thu, Oct 1
    Expected in goal
    Y. Askarov
    1 day rest.885 last start63:14 played
    Forwards · 12
    • W. Smith20:09
    • A. Wennberg21:44
    • B. Goodrow14:09
    • M. Marchment12:44
    • I. Stenberg13:35
    • K. Sherwood14:01
    • C. Graf16:48
    • Z. Ostapchuk11:29
    • M. Celebrini22:57
    • T. Toffoli09:24
    • M. Misa11:34
    • I. Chernyshov12:13
    Defence · 6
    • N. Allan20:44
    • M. Kesselring19:46
    • D. Orlov17:55
    • D. Nurse17:07
    • L. Cagnoni21:17
    • J. Trouba22:35

    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.

    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page