Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Los Angeles Kings sweater
← Mon, Oct 26 · the slate
Breakdown · LAK at NYR

Kings pull away from the Rangers

FinalMon, Oct 26
LAKLos Angeles Kings6NYRNew York Rangers3
The verdict · stolen

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.22–3.66 and won anyway.

LAK 6 · NYR 3
◆ By the ModelOct 26, 11:01 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Raw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Kings rolled past the Rangers 6-3 in a game the underlying numbers called close to even — expected goals split 3.66–3.22, a slight edge to the Rangers.

The numbers behind the result. The Rangers held 50% of shot attempts (26–26 on goal). Expected goals finished 3.66–3.22 (53–47% split), and high-danger chances went 4–4.

Variance watch. The Kings overperformed their xG by 2.78 goals.

Turning point. Joel Edmundson's wrist shot from a sharp angle (P3, 16:37).

The goals

  • LAK 1–0, 01:15 of the first. T. Ward, snap shot from 13 feet, a 22% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Reimer. Assists: D. Doughty, T. Moore. J. Reimer was 75 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • LAK 2–0, 04:52 of the first on the power play. B. Clarke, tip-in from 7 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Reimer. Assists: S. Laughton, J. Armia. J. Reimer was 292 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 13 points.
  • NYR 2–1, 13:01 of the first. J. Miller, deflection from 4 feet, a 40% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Kuemper. Assists: T. Kartye. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • LAK 3–1, 17:32 of the first. D. Doughty, snap shot from 60 feet, a 1% chance by the model, past J. Reimer. Assists: J. Edmundson, A. Panarin. J. Reimer was 1052 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • LAK 4–1, 01:30 of the second on the power play. A. Panarin, snap shot from 40 feet, a 7% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Garand. Assists: E. Gustafsson, A. Laferriere. D. Garand was 90 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 9 points.
  • LAK 5–1, 06:54 of the second. M. Anderson, slap shot from 49 feet, a 4% chance by the model, past D. Garand. Assists: C. Perry. 3 seconds after a LAK faceoff win by C. Perry. D. Garand was 414 seconds into his shift for the defending side.
  • NYR 5–2, 13:05 of the second on the power play. A. Fox, snap shot from 45 feet, a 4% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Kuemper. Assists: P. Dorofeyev, A. Lafrenière.
  • NYR 5–3, 16:08 of the third on the power play. T. Kartye, snap shot from 40 feet, a 4% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Kuemper. Assists: S. Durzi.
  • LAK 6–3, 16:37 of the third into an empty net. J. Edmundson, wrist shot from 23 feet, a 22% chance by the model. Assists: D. Doughty, A. Laferriere. 6 seconds after a LAK faceoff win by A. Laferriere.

Goaltending

  • D. Kuemper (LAK): 23/26 saves, 0.885 SV% (+0.66 vs expected)
  • D. Garand (NYR): 15/17 saves, 0.882 SV%
  • J. Reimer (NYR): 5/8 saves, 0.625 SV% (-1.97 vs expected)

Storylines

  • J. Reimer (NYR) gave up 2.0 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • LAK was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/4 on HD chances (50%).
  • NYR scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • LAK scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • NYR was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 20 rush chances.
  • LAK was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • NYR created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • LAK created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • LAK outperformed their expected goals by 2.8 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.

Final: LAK 6 – NYR 3

Data: NHL play-by-play and shift charts, Backcheck xG model

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 26
LAK
6
NYR
3

Kings pull away from the Rangers

Chances 3.2 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Rangers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
3.22
NYR
3.66
47% of the chances53%

The board read LAK 6, NYR 3. The chances read LAK 3.2, NYR 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
LAK
+2.8
goals above expected
LAK3.22 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
NYR3.66 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kings scored 2.8 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+15
win-probability points
65% → 79% for LAK
NYR 100%the game, start to finish
LAK 100%P1 · P2 · P3
LAKP1 17:32

D. Doughty makes it 3–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 01:15LAKT. Ward22%1–0
  2. P1 04:52LAKB. ClarkePP11%2–0
  3. P1 13:01NYRJ. Miller41%2–1
  4. P1 17:32LAKD. Doughty1%3–1
  5. P2 01:30LAKA. PanarinPP7%4–1
  6. P2 06:54LAKM. Anderson4%5–1
  7. P2 13:05NYRA. FoxPP4%5–2
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
42 shots
6
Final
84 shots
NYR
42 shots
3
LAK attackNYR attack
LAK NYR Goal
42
shots · 6 in
42
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKNYR
2 / 4
0.94 xG
High danger
1 / 4
1.09 xG
2 / 19
1.91 xG
Medium
0 / 21
2.19 xG
2 / 37
0.38 xG
Low
2 / 33
0.38 xG

The Kings buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
D. Kuemper
+0.7
LAK · 23/26 · 59:19
Best save · a 32% chance, backhand from 5 ft · P2 12:37
C
D. Garand
−0.2
NYR · 15/17 · 38:05 · in relief
Best save · a 20% chance, backhand from 11 ft · P2 19:29
+1 more on the full breakdown
Best skater on the ice
A+
LAK
A. Panarin
L · impact 2.46
19:52
Ice time
1–1
G – A
0.48
Own xG
90%
xG share
Impact · top 4
A. Panarin2.5A+
J. Miller2.3A+
D. Doughty2.3A+
T. Kartye2.0A
Report card
LAKNYR
OffenseB+A-
DefenseFD
TransitionC+C-
Special teamsA-A+
GoaltendingB-F
DisciplineBD
LuckA+F
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why LAK won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Clinical in the slot
  3. 03Power play cashed in
Why NYR lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02J. Reimer gave one back
  3. 03Paraded to the penalty box
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Kings pull away from the Rangers

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 8–5
  1. 01:15LAKT. Ward(D. Doughty, T. Moore)1–0

    Snap shot from 13 feet, a 22% chance (off the rush), past J. Reimer. J. Reimer was 75s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: D. Doughty, E. Haula, J. Edmundson, J. Armia, S. Laughton · against J. Reimer, P. Dorofeyev, B. Schneider, W. Cuylle, N. Laba, A. Smits

  2. 04:52LAKB. Clarkepower play(S. Laughton, J. Armia)2–0

    Tip-in from 7 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past J. Reimer. J. Reimer was 292s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 13 points.On the ice: C. Perry, D. Doughty, J. Edmundson, A. Lee, S. Helenius · against J. Reimer, L. Glendening, T. Raddysh, E. Tolvanen, B. Schneider, A. Smits

  3. 13:01NYRJ. Miller(T. Kartye)2–1

    Deflection from 4 feet, a 41% chance (off the rush), past D. Kuemper. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: J. Reimer, M. Pettersson, P. Dorofeyev, B. Schneider, W. Cuylle, N. Laba · against E. Haula, J. Armia, S. Laughton, E. Gustafsson, B. Clarke

  4. 17:32LAKD. Doughty(J. Edmundson, A. Panarin)3–1

    Snap shot from 60 feet, a 1% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past J. Reimer. J. Reimer was 1052s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: B. Dumoulin, T. Moore, M. Anderson, Q. Byfield, T. Ward · against J. Reimer, J. Miller, O. Bjorkstrand, M. Pettersson, T. Kartye, B. Schneider

2ndshots 15–13
  1. 01:30LAKA. Panarinpower play(E. Gustafsson, A. Laferriere)4–1

    Snap shot from 40 feet, a 7% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past D. Garand. D. Garand was 90s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 9 points.On the ice: D. Doughty, E. Haula, J. Edmundson, J. Armia, S. Laughton · against J. Miller, O. Bjorkstrand, S. Durzi, T. Kartye, D. Garand, A. Smits

  2. 06:54LAKM. Anderson(C. Perry)5–1

    Slap shot from 49 feet, a 4% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past D. Garand. 3s after a LAK faceoff win by C. Perry. D. Garand was 414s into his shift for the defending side.On the ice: C. Perry, B. Dumoulin, M. Anderson, A. Lee, S. Helenius · against S. Durzi, P. Dorofeyev, W. Cuylle, D. Garand, N. Laba, A. Smits

  3. 13:05NYRA. Foxpower play(P. Dorofeyev, A. Lafrenière)5–2

    Snap shot from 45 feet, a 4% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past D. Kuemper.On the ice: V. Gavrikov, A. Fox, P. Dorofeyev, W. Cuylle, D. Garand, N. Laba · against E. Gustafsson, A. Kempe, A. Panarin, A. Laferriere, B. Clarke

3rdshots 3–8
  1. 16:08NYRT. Kartyepower play(S. Durzi)5–3

    Snap shot from 40 feet, a 5% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past D. Kuemper.On the ice: O. Bjorkstrand, V. Gavrikov, S. Durzi, T. Kartye, W. Cuylle, D. Garand · against D. Doughty, J. Edmundson, T. Moore, A. Lee, Q. Byfield

  2. 16:37LAKJ. Edmundsonempty net(D. Doughty, A. Laferriere)6–3

    Wrist shot from 23 feet, a 22% chance. 6s after a LAK faceoff win by A. Laferriere.On the ice: E. Haula, J. Armia, S. Laughton, E. Gustafsson, B. Clarke · against L. Glendening, T. Raddysh, E. Tolvanen, B. Schneider, D. Garand, A. Smits

score reads LAK–NYR

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.22
LAK chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.048
LAK puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
50.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.22Expected goals3.66
NYR 53% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal26
4High-danger chances4
60All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: LAK 44% · NYR 56%
Faceoffs · NYR won68%off55%neu55%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK2 / 4 · 0.94 xG
NYR1 / 4 · 1.09 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK2 / 19 · 1.91 xG
NYR0 / 21 · 2.19 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK2 / 37 · 0.38 xG
NYR2 / 33 · 0.38 xG

NYR went 0-for-21 from medium danger on 2.19 expected goals — 2.2 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
6 G · 3.22 xG · +2.8
NYR
3 G · 3.66 xG · -0.7
01234567

LAK finished +2.8 against expected, NYR -0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
WRIST1/14
SNAP3/12
TIP IN1/5
SLAP1/4
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/4
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/18
NYR
WRIST0/21
SNAP2/3
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/4
DEFLECTED1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/16
LAK
NYR
Off the rush
3 G on 26
2.56 xG
3 G on 20
2.48 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.29 xG
0 G on 6
0.58 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-14, NYR 0-for-21. LAK scored 3 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 · 23/26 · .885
started · 59:19 · win
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
Attempts faced
42
Avg chance faced
8.7%
Stopped vs expected
0.929 vs 0.913
Rebounds allowed
6
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/41.1+0.1
Medium0/212.2+2.2
Low2/170.4-1.6
Shorthanded2/40.3-1.7
Tips & deflections1/91.1+0.1
The save
32% chance stopped, a backhand from 5 ft · P2 12:37
The one to have back
4% chance went in, a snap from 45 ft · P2 13:05

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

D. Garand
NYR · 15/17 · .882
in relief · 38:05 · loss
-0.2
saved above expected
C
the night
Attempts faced
24
Avg chance faced
7.5%
Stopped vs expected
0.917 vs 0.925
Rebounds allowed
4
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.2+0.2
Medium1/141.4+0.4
Low1/90.2-0.8
Shorthanded1/70.7-0.3
Tips & deflections0/50.4+0.4
The save
20% chance stopped, a backhand from 11 ft · P2 19:29
The one to have back
4% chance went in, a slap from 49 ft · P2 06:54

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

J. Reimer
NYR · 5/8 · .625
started · 20:00
-1.8
saved above expected
F
the night
Attempts faced
17
Avg chance faced
7.0%
Stopped vs expected
0.824 vs 0.930
Rebounds allowed
1
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.5
Medium1/50.5-0.5
Low1/100.1-0.9
Shorthanded1/20.2-0.8
Tips & deflections1/40.3-0.7
The save
30% chance stopped, a snap from 10 ft · P1 17:10
The one to have back
1% chance went in, a snap from 60 ft · P1 17:32

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

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), 19:52 of ice, 1-1, 90% of the expected goals while he was out.

LAK18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
A. PanarinL19:521-190A+
D. DoughtyD21:371-249A+
A. LaferriereR18:170-288A
J. EdmundsonD20:001-149A
A. KempeR18:260-083A
C. PerryR10:190-160A
E. GustafssonD20:230-159B
B. ClarkeD20:101-045B
T. WardR12:331-09B
M. AndersonD17:231-026C
J. ArmiaR17:500-134C
S. LaughtonC17:230-131C
T. MooreL14:010-125D
S. HeleniusC10:110-047D
E. HaulaL16:440-043D
Q. ByfieldR17:100-032F
A. LeeL9:150-031F
B. DumoulinD16:420-027F
NYR18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
J. MillerC20:321-069A+
T. KartyeL17:571-161A
A. FoxD24:251-059B
P. DorofeyevR16:140-152B
S. DurziD15:100-148B
A. LafrenièreL18:270-161B
O. BjorkstrandR16:120-077C
W. CuylleL15:580-056C
V. GavrikovD22:090-067C
M. ZibanejadC19:150-061C
M. PetterssonD22:070-056C
G. PerreaultR17:070-054D
T. RaddyshR5:580-033D
B. SchneiderD20:240-050D
E. TolvanenR8:490-021D
N. LabaC13:300-046D
A. SmitsD13:560-035F
L. GlendeningC7:310-016F

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: C. Ceci, J. Wright. Scratched, NYR: M. Rempe, S. Morrow. Referees Jean Hebert and Michael Markovic; linesmen Matt MacPherson and Jeremy Faucher.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionLAKNYR
Offense
▸Basis

LAK Created 3.22 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.94 xG) and 26 rush shots (2.56 xG).

NYR Created 3.66 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (1.09 xG) and 20 rush shots (2.48 xG).

B+
87
A-
92
Defense
▸Basis

LAK Allowed 3.66 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (1.09 xG) and 20 rush shots (2.48 xG).

NYR Allowed 3.22 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.94 xG) and 26 rush shots (2.56 xG).

F
58
D
63
Transition
▸Basis

LAK Rush shots 26–20, rush xG 2.56–2.48 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

NYR Rush shots 20–26, rush xG 2.48–2.56 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

C+
79
C-
71
Special teams
▸Basis

LAK 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 0.73 PP xG.

NYR 1-for-1 on the power play (100%; league ≈21%) with 0.04 PP xG.

A-
91
A+
100
Goaltending
▸Basis

LAK +0.66 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.

NYR -1.78 goals saved above expected on 25 shots against.

B-
82
F
57
Discipline
▸Basis

LAK Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

NYR Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.

B
85
D
65
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

LAK Finishing +2.78 goals vs xG plus +0.66 GSAx of save luck = +3.44 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

NYR Finishing -0.66 goals vs xG plus -1.78 GSAx of save luck = -2.44 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

A+
100
F
56
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
WARNINGNYR

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 26 rush shots worth 2.56 xG (3 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

WARNINGLAK

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 20 rush shots worth 2.48 xG (3 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

STRENGTHLAK

Dangerous off the rush

3 goals on 26 rush shots worth 2.56 xG.

STRENGTHNYR

Dangerous off the rush

3 goals on 20 rush shots worth 2.48 xG.

LUCKLAK

Ran hot in front of the net

Scored 6 on 3.22 xG — +2.78 above expected. Shooting luck like that regresses.

STRENGTHLAK

Clinical in the slot

2 goals on 4 high-danger shots (50% conversion on 0.94 xG).

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
LAK
42 shots
6
Final
84 shots
NYR
42 shots
3
LAK attackNYR attack
LAK NYR Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK left, NYR 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
D. Doughty
#8 · D · LAK
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 21:37 on ice · +3
J. Edmundson
#6 · D · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:00 on ice · +3
A. Panarin
#10 · L · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:52 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Oct 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 26, 9:01 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 Rangers are the narrow pick, and the honest read is that this game could go either way.

The model projects a LAK 3.0 - 3.1 NYR game. The Rangers carry a 52% win probability, which is about as close to a pick'em as you will find.

The underlying play leans toward New York's side. The Rangers have taken 51.0% of the expected goals share at 5-on-5, against 47.9% for the Kings. The Kings have also been on the wrong end of luck. Their PDO, a gauge that adds shooting and save percentages together, sits at 0.979, which means they are running cold and due for positive regression.

The Rangers are the hotter side by points pace, at 5-4-1 over their last 10 games. The Kings are underwater, with a -11 goal differential through 9 games.

In goal, D. Garand has the stronger case. He is at +0.6 goals saved above expected over 9 games, while A. Forsberg is at +0.1 over 4.

Margins decide this one.

Data: NHL API, Backcheck expected goals model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

NYR 52%
52%
NYR
Model favorite
48%
52%
LAK50NYR

NYR by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 3.0–3.1 NYR; 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 →NYR
47.9%51.0%
48.3%47.6%
2.763.21
3.013.08
2.333.15
3.562.77
0.9791.009

NYR holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.979 vs 1.009) says NYR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 9–10
LAK
2-5-2
-11 GD · 1d rest
NYR
5-4-1
+2 GD · 1d rest
0.979
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.009
NYR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICAL

The Rangers own the underlying play

The Rangers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.9%.

WARNINGLAK

Regression watch: Kings

The Kings' PDO is 0.979 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

TACTICAL

Too close to call

Win probability splits 52%–48% — margins decide this one.

TACTICALNYR

D. Garand was beatable last time out

D. Garand stopped just 77.3% in his last start.

Where the edges live
  • The Rangers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.9%.
Regression watch
  • The Kings' PDO is 0.979 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • The Rangers own the underlying play — 51.0% 5v5 xG vs 47.9%.
  • Goalie matchup: A. Forsberg (+0.1 GSAx in 4 GP, 89.4% SV) vs D. Garand (+0.6 GSAx in 9 GP, 90.0% SV).
  • The Rangers are the hotter team by points pace (5-4-1 over their last 10).
  • The Kings are underwater at -11 goal differential over their 9 games so far.
  • The Kings' PDO is 0.979 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
LAK
vs NJD · Sat, Oct 24
Expected in goal
A. Forsberg
1 day rest.920 last start58:29 played
Backup Darcy Kuemper · -2.9 GSAx this season
Forwards · 12
  • A. Kempe20:41
  • A. Panarin23:06
  • T. Moore15:43
  • A. Laferriere21:32
  • S. Laughton14:26
  • J. Wright07:57
  • M. Zuccarello13:20
  • J. Armia14:10
  • A. Lee13:28
  • E. Haula16:11
  • S. Helenius09:51
  • C. Perry10:41
Defence · 6
  • B. Dumoulin15:30
  • J. Edmundson18:55
  • D. Doughty23:27
  • M. Anderson17:04
  • E. Gustafsson21:27
  • B. Clarke20:02
NYR
vs OTT · Sat, Oct 24
Expected in goal
D. Garand
1 day rest.773 last start58:29 played
Backup Igor Shesterkin · +6.1 GSAx this season
Forwards · 12
  • J. Miller17:57
  • A. Lafrenière19:33
  • T. Raddysh05:55
  • P. Dorofeyev19:04
  • E. Tolvanen10:59
  • T. Kartye15:13
  • O. Bjorkstrand10:20
  • N. Laba17:15
  • L. Glendening06:08
  • W. Cuylle19:32
  • M. Zibanejad20:26
  • G. Perreault14:54
Defence · 6
  • B. Schneider15:13
  • S. Durzi19:58
  • A. Smits13:27
  • A. Fox24:00
  • M. Pettersson23:01
  • V. Gavrikov20:36

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