Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater

Breakdown · LAK at VGK

Golden Knights edge the Kings in overtime

Final / OTSat, Oct 10

LAKLos Angeles Kings1 VGKVegas Golden Knights2

The verdict · earned

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

LAK 1 · VGK 2

◆ By the ModelOct 11, 1:01 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

Mitch Marner's snap shot at 02:40 of overtime decided it, and the Golden Knights left with a 2-1 win.

The Kings were the team that deserved better. Their one goal came in well below the 2.31 expected goals the model credited them with. Expected goals is the model's estimate of how many goals a set of chances should produce, so a 1.31-goal shortfall is the biggest gap in this game.

The Golden Knights were the better side over the full game. They controlled 56% of five-on-five expected goals, 2.94 to 2.31, so the underlying numbers backed the result.

Two things made the difference. Off the rush, the Golden Knights were lethal, scoring 2 goals on 29 rush chances. Both of their goals came on the power play.

The Kings' biggest problem was the rush. They gave up 29 shots off it, worth 2.50 expected goals, and the gaps showed in every period.

C. Hart was the reason the margin stayed narrow. He kept out 1.3 more goals than the shots he faced should have allowed.

The goals

VGK 0–1, 02:37 of the second on the power play. T. Connelly, snap shot from 11 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Kuemper. Assists: M. Stone, M. Marner. Win probability moved 19 points.
LAK 1–1, 06:21 of the second on the power play. A. Panarin, wrist shot from 37 feet, a 6% chance by the model (off the rush), past C. Hart. Assists: A. Kempe, B. Clarke. Win probability moved 20 points.
VGK 1–2, 02:40 of overtime on the power play. M. Marner, snap shot from 34 feet, a 20% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Kuemper. Assists: M. Stone, T. Connelly. 6 seconds after a LAK faceoff win by E. Haula. Win probability moved 50 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 10

LAK

VGK

Golden Knights edge the Kings in overtime

Chances 2.3 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

LAK

2.31

VGK

2.94

44% of the chances56%

The board read LAK 1, VGK 2. The chances read LAK 2.3, VGK 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

VGK

−0.9

goals above expected

VGK2.94 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK2.31 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

The swing

+50

win-probability points

50% → 100% for VGK

VGK 100%the game, start to finish

LAK 100%P1 · P2 · P3

VGKOT 02:40 · PP

M. Marner makes it 1–2.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games

Every goal, in order

P2 02:37VGKT. ConnellyPP14%0–1
P2 06:21LAKA. PanarinPP6%1–1
OT 02:40VGKM. MarnerPP20%1–2

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

LAK

42 shots

Final

88 shots

VGK

46 shots

LAK VGK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

LAKVGK

0 / 3

0.60 xG

High danger

1 / 4

0.81 xG

1 / 14

1.38 xG

Medium

1 / 16

1.64 xG

0 / 42

0.33 xG

Low

0 / 41

0.49 xG

The Kings went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

B+

C. Hart

+1.3

VGK · 26/27 · 62:34

Best save · a 22% chance, wrist from 10 ft · P1 14:30

B+

D. Kuemper

+0.9

LAK · 30/32 · 61:14

Best save · a 23% chance, tip-in from 5 ft · P2 14:35

Best skater on the ice

A+

VGK

T. Connelly

L · impact 2.27

14:06

Ice time

1–1

G – A

0.58

Own xG

87%

xG share

Impact · top 4

T. Connelly2.3A+

M. Stone1.8A+

M. Marner1.8A+

A. Kempe1.5A

Report card

LAKVGK

OffenseCB

DefenseD+C+

TransitionDB+

Special teamsA-A+

GoaltendingBB+

DisciplineCC

LuckC-C+

Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown

Why it went the way it went

Why VGK won

01Dangerous off the rush
02Power play cashed in
03C. Hart tilted the crease

Why LAK lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Cold finishing night
03Paraded to the penalty box

Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Golden Knights edge the Kings in overtime

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 10–9no goals

2ndshots 3–14

02:37VGKT. Connellypower play(M. Stone, M. Marner)0–1
Snap shot from 11 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past D. Kuemper. Win probability moved 19 points.On the ice: N. Dowd, R. Andersson, P. Wotherspoon, M. Gatcomb, B. Bowman · against J. Edmundson, A. Kempe, A. Panarin, Q. Byfield, B. Clarke
06:21LAKA. Panarinpower play(A. Kempe, B. Clarke)1–1
Wrist shot from 37 feet, a 6% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past C. Hart. Win probability moved 20 points.On the ice: C. Perry, E. Haula, C. Ceci, T. Moore, M. Anderson · against B. McNabb, M. Stone, S. Theodore, I. Barbashev, J. Eichel

3rdshots 11–8no goals

OTshots 3–1

02:40VGKM. Marnerpower play(M. Stone, T. Connelly)1–2
Snap shot from 34 feet, a 20% chance (off the rush), past D. Kuemper. 6s after a LAK faceoff win by E. Haula. Win probability moved 50 points.

score reads LAK–VGK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.94

VGK chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.9

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.016

VGK puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

50.8%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.31Expected goals2.94

VGK 56% of the chance quality

27Shots on goal32

3High-danger chances4

59All attempts (Corsi)61

Adjusted for score: LAK 49% · VGK 51%

Faceoffs · VGK won68%off62%neu48%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK0 / 3 · 0.60 xG

VGK1 / 4 · 0.81 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK1 / 14 · 1.38 xG

VGK1 / 16 · 1.64 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK0 / 42 · 0.33 xG

VGK0 / 41 · 0.49 xG

VGK went 1-for-16 from medium danger on 1.64 expected goals — 0.6 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

1 G · 2.31 xG · -1.3

VGK

2 G · 2.94 xG · -0.9

01234

LAK finished -1.3 against expected, VGK -0.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

WRIST1/24

SNAP0/5

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/4

SLAP0/1

DEFLECTED0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/17

VGK

WRIST0/22

SNAP2/14

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/3

SLAP0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/15

LAK

VGK

Off the rush

1 G on 23

1.60 xG

2 G on 29

2.50 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.37 xG

0 G on 3

0.21 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-24, VGK 0-for-22. VGK 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

D. Kuemper

LAK · 30/32 · .938

started · 61:14 · OT loss

+0.9

saved above expected

B+

the night

Attempts faced: 46
Avg chance faced: 6.4%
Stopped vs expected: 0.957 vs 0.936
Rebounds allowed: 3

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.8-0.2

Medium1/161.6+0.6

Low0/260.5+0.5

Shorthanded2/30.5-1.5

Tips & deflections0/40.4+0.4

The save

23% chance stopped, a tip-in from 5 ft · P2 14:35

The one to have back

14% chance went in, a snap from 11 ft · P2 02:37

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

C. Hart

VGK · 26/27 · .963

started · 62:34 · win

+1.3

saved above expected

B+

the night

Attempts faced: 42
Avg chance faced: 5.5%
Stopped vs expected: 0.976 vs 0.945
Rebounds allowed: 4

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.6+0.6

Medium1/141.4+0.4

Low0/250.3+0.3

Shorthanded1/70.8-0.2

Tips & deflections0/70.5+0.5

The save

22% chance stopped, a wrist from 10 ft · P1 14:30

The one to have back

6% chance went in, a wrist from 37 ft · P2 06:21

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: T. Connelly (VGK), 14:06 of ice, 1-1, 87% of the expected goals while he was out.

LAK18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
A. KempeR	19:34	0-1	3	0.55	64	1/0	1.53	4.70	A
A. PanarinL	21:08	1-0	5	0.34	63	0/0	1.46	4.15	A
B. ClarkeD	16:55	0-1	3	0.02	65	1/1	1.08	3.82	A
Q. ByfieldR	20:02	0-0	3	0.39	63	2/0	0.81	2.43	A
A. LaferriereR	19:05	0-0	2	0.27	48	0/0	0.30	0.96	C
J. WrightR	10:24	0-0	3	0.18	13	0/0	0.22	1.26	C
C. PerryR	13:52	0-0	1	0.12	49	0/0	0.14	0.61	C
S. HeleniusC	9:05	0-0	0	0.00	47	0/0	-0.02	-0.13	D
A. LeeL	10:47	0-0	1	0.15	22	0/0	-0.07	-0.40	D
J. EdmundsonD	15:28	0-0	0	0.00	32	0/0	-0.12	-0.47	D
J. ArmiaR	12:33	0-0	0	0.00	9	0/0	-0.14	-0.65	D
S. LaughtonC	15:39	0-0	2	0.01	5	1/2	-0.18	-0.69	D
T. MooreL	17:27	0-0	1	0.11	18	0/0	-0.23	-0.80	D
M. AndersonD	21:53	0-0	0	0.01	25	0/0	-0.28	-0.76	F
C. CeciD	21:29	0-0	0	0.04	27	0/0	-0.28	-0.77	F
E. HaulaL	17:02	0-0	2	0.11	15	0/0	-0.28	-0.98	F
D. DoughtyD	24:01	0-0	0	0.00	22	0/1	-0.42	-1.06	F
B. DumoulinD	19:16	0-0	1	0.01	14	0/1	-0.42	-1.32	F

VGK18 skaters

Skater	TOI	G-A	SOG	ixG	xG%	PD/PT	Impact	/60	Grade
T. ConnellyL	14:06	1-1	6	0.58	87	0/0	2.27	9.64	A+
M. StoneR	18:45	0-2	1	0.29	68	0/0	1.76	5.63	A+
M. MarnerR	20:10	1-1	3	0.43	50	0/0	1.75	5.22	A+
R. LavoieC	9:22	0-0	1	0.26	87	0/0	0.51	3.26	A
M. GatcombC	10:53	0-0	5	0.16	74	0/0	0.54	2.99	B
R. AnderssonD	18:58	0-0	2	0.03	78	1/1	0.60	1.91	B
I. BarbashevL	19:08	0-0	0	0.23	66	2/0	0.55	1.73	B
S. TheodoreD	21:46	0-0	1	0.02	72	1/0	0.56	1.54	B
W. KarlssonC	16:40	0-0	3	0.23	55	0/0	0.47	1.67	B
T. HertlC	15:32	0-0	0	0.06	88	0/0	0.45	1.73	B
J. EichelC	22:53	0-0	4	0.35	46	0/0	0.40	1.04	B
B. McNabbD	19:50	0-0	0	0.01	75	0/1	0.38	1.14	C
N. HanifinD	20:13	0-0	2	0.14	54	0/0	0.27	0.80	C
B. BowmanR	12:44	0-0	0	0.00	91	0/0	0.18	0.85	C
B. HowdenC	15:25	0-0	0	0.00	58	0/0	0.15	0.60	C
N. DowdC	10:26	0-0	2	0.07	49	1/2	0.07	0.41	C
P. WotherspoonD	19:05	0-0	0	0.00	49	0/0	0.04	0.13	D
J. LauzonD	16:46	0-0	2	0.08	32	0/1	-0.12	-0.43	D

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: E. Gustafsson. Scratched, VGK: V. Olofsson, D. Coghlan. Referees Furman South and Corey Syvret; linesmen James Tobias and Shawn Oliver.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionLAKVGK

Offense

▸Basis

LAK Created 2.31 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.60 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.60 xG).

VGK Created 2.94 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.81 xG) and 29 rush shots (2.50 xG).

Defense

▸Basis

LAK Allowed 2.94 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.81 xG) and 29 rush shots (2.50 xG).

VGK Allowed 2.31 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.60 xG) and 23 rush shots (1.60 xG).

D+

C+

Transition

▸Basis

LAK Rush shots 23–29, rush xG 1.60–2.50 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

VGK Rush shots 29–23, rush xG 2.50–1.60 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

B+

Special teams

▸Basis

LAK 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 0.71 PP xG.

VGK 2-for-3 on the power play (67%; league ≈21%) with 0.48 PP xG.

A-

A+

100

Goaltending

▸Basis

LAK +0.94 goals saved above expected on 32 shots against.

VGK +1.31 goals saved above expected on 27 shots against.

B+

Discipline

▸Basis

LAK Took 5 penalties for 13 PIM vs 5 for 13 on the other side.

VGK Took 5 penalties for 13 PIM vs 5 for 13 on the other side.

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

LAK Finishing -1.31 goals vs xG plus +0.94 GSAx of save luck = -0.37 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

VGK Finishing -0.94 goals vs xG plus +1.31 GSAx of save luck = +0.37 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

C-

C+

Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately

What the model flagged

WARNINGLAK

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 29 rush shots worth 2.50 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHVGK

Dangerous off the rush

2 goals on 29 rush shots worth 2.50 xG.

STRENGTHVGK

Power play cashed in

2-for-3 on the power play (67%) on 0.48 PP xG.

WARNINGVGK

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 23 rush shots worth 1.60 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHLAK

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 23 rush shots worth 1.60 xG.

STRENGTHLAK

Power play cashed in

1-for-3 on the power play (33%) on 0.71 PP xG.

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

LAK

42 shots

Final

88 shots

VGK

46 shots

LAK VGK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, VGK 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

M. Marner

#93 · R · VGK

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:10 on ice

M. Stone

#61 · R · VGK

0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:45 on ice

T. Connelly

#24 · L · VGK

1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 14:06 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page