Dangerous off the rush
2 goals on 36 rush shots worth 3.26 xG.
One page on where Kingsactually stand: what the model likes, what it is worried about, and which of those worries are real problems rather than bad luck that should even out. Everything below is computed from this club's games — no votes, no panel.
Last time out (Sat, Oct 31): BUF 3 - 2 LAK — a loss to the Sabres.
The model's top flag from that game: dangerous off the rush — 2 goals on 36 rush shots worth 3.26 xG.
BUF Created 2.96 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.90 xG) and 26 rush shots (2.14 xG).
LAK Created 3.74 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.81 xG) and 36 rush shots (3.26 xG).
BUF Allowed 3.74 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.81 xG) and 36 rush shots (3.26 xG).
LAK Allowed 2.96 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.90 xG) and 26 rush shots (2.14 xG).
BUF Rush shots 26–36, rush xG 2.14–3.26 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
LAK Rush shots 36–26, rush xG 3.26–2.14 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
BUF 2-for-3 on the power play (67%; league ≈21%) with 0.99 PP xG.
LAK 1-for-6 on the power play (17%; league ≈21%) with 0.43 PP xG.
BUF +1.74 goals saved above expected on 29 shots against.
LAK -0.04 goals saved above expected on 31 shots against.
BUF Took 7 penalties for 14 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.
LAK Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 7 for 14 on the other side.
Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral
BUF Finishing +0.04 goals vs xG plus +1.74 GSAx of save luck = +1.78 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
LAK Finishing -1.74 goals vs xG plus -0.04 GSAx of save luck = -1.78 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
2 goals on 36 rush shots worth 3.26 xG.
Gave up 26 rush shots worth 2.14 xG (3 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
Scored 2 on 3.74 xG — -1.74 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.
1-for-6 on the power play (17%) on 0.43 PP xG.
The Kings controlled 56% of expected goals (3.74 to 2.96) and still lost — the process was there, the finish wasn't.
Change nothing structurally — this loss was variance, not process.
Gave up 26 rush shots worth 2.14 xG (3 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
The Kings controlled 56% of expected goals (3.74 to 2.96) and still lost — the process was there, the finish wasn't.
Change nothing structurally — this loss was variance, not process.
2 goals on 36 rush shots worth 3.26 xG.
1-for-6 on the power play (17%) on 0.43 PP xG.
LAK latest graded game vs the average of its prior graded games
How hard is this team’s season, logistically? This grades the schedule itself — travel, rest, and clustering — separate from how good the team is.
The 17th-heaviest schedule in the league — 84 games, 1.3 days average rest.
Nights of rest before each game · 0 days = red, 3+ = green
18 games with more rest than the opponent · 22 with fewer · 43 even.
6 games in 10 days with 4,477 travel miles
Jan 15 – Jan 24
6 games in 10 days with 3,918 travel miles
Feb 24 – Mar 5
6 games in 10 days with 3,666 travel miles
Feb 8 – Feb 17
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
Change nothing structurally — this loss was variance, not process.