Backcheck
Recap · LAK at STL

Kings edge the Blues in overtime

The Kings stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.06–2.45 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 12:35 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
LAK
Los Angeles Kings
2
Home
STL
St. Louis Blues
1
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.06Expected goals2.45
54% share for the better side
28Shot attempts (SOG)18
1High-danger chances4
47Corsi (all attempts)46
Score-adjusted: 50% / 51%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Kings' overtime winner masked an uncomfortable truth: the Blues generated better underlying chances but couldn't convert them. St. Louis finished with 2.45 expected goals to Los Angeles's 2.06, a slight edge to the Blues, yet lost 2-1—a mismatch rooted in execution rather than opportunity.

The Blues controlled territory with 39% of shot attempts (18–28), but volume without conversion is a loss. L.A. was lethal in high-value situations: high-danger chances split 4–1 in their favor, and they scored twice on 21 rush attempts. St. Louis created three rebound opportunities and converted none. D. Kuemper's 0.944 save percentage, +1.45 goals above expected, amplified the gap. J. Binnington faced a modest 0.929 SV%, but the problem wasn't the goaltending—it was the execution before the shot.

Adrian Kempe's overtime winner came at 01:50 from the top of the circles, capping L.A.'s rush dominance. Kempe registered 1G and 1A in 18:33. J. Faulk answered for St. Louis with 1G, and R. Thomas added 1A, but neither was enough to overcome the efficiency gap.

St. Louis had the better underlying numbers (2.45 xG), yet hockey is built on translation rates. The Kings proved more ruthless when it mattered.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK0 / 1 · 0.33 xG
STL0 / 4 · 1.09 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK2 / 10 · 1.11 xG
STL1 / 8 · 0.92 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK0 / 36 · 0.62 xG
STL0 / 34 · 0.44 xG

STL went 0-for-4 from high danger on 1.09 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
2 G · 2.06 xG · -0.1
STL
1 G · 2.45 xG · -1.4
0123
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
D. KuemperLAK
+1.4
J. BinningtonSTL
+0.1

LAK finished -0.1 against expected, STL -1.4 — D. Kuemper (LAK) saved 1.4 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
WRIST0/17
SLAP1/8
TIP IN0/4
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND1/3
WRAP AROUND0/2
BAT0/0
OTHER0/9
STL
WRIST1/19
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/4
SNAP0/3
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/15
LAK
STL
Off the rush
2 G on 21 · 1.77 xG
1 G on 18 · 1.40 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1 · 0.02 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.49 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 0-for-17, STL 1-for-19. LAK scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
A. Kempe
#9 · R · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:33 TOI · +1
J. Faulk
#72 · D · STL
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 23:37 TOI · -1
R. Thomas
#18 · C · STL
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:02 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • LAK generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • D. Kuemper (LAK) stopped 1.4 goals above expected.
  • LAK was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 21 rush chances.
  • STL created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · LAK at STL · 8:00 PM ET

Kings at Blues: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 12:33 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
LAK
Model favorite
51%
49%
LAK50STL

LAK by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.42.4 STL; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

LAK← edge
edge →STL
52.0%5v5 xG%49.0%
52.0%Corsi%48.0%
2.42xGF / 602.34
2.20xGA / 602.40
1.85Goals for / gm2.00
1.71Goals against / gm2.12
1.002PDO — luck, not skill1.000

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.002 vs 1.000) says LAK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.4–2.4 game with the Kings at 50% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The Kings own the underlying play: 52.0% expected goals and 52.0% Corsi at five-on-five, which points to territorial dominance. St. Louis counters at 49.0% xG and 48.0% Corsi, a modest disadvantage. Neither gap is wide enough to predict a winner.

The disconnect is recent results. Los Angeles sits -8 in goal differential over their last 10, a sign their edge hasn't converted. Both teams show identical puck luck: LAK's PDO is 1.002, STL's 1.000. Special teams won't swing this either—both teams show 0% hard-chance and 0% rebound-goal rates. This matchup is a coin flip because the underlying play is a coin flip.

Alex Laferriere (16G, 18A, 0.87 xG/60, 9.9% shooting, 2 hard-chance goals) carries the Kings' offensive load. Jared Wright (0G, 4A, 0.83 xG/60) supports him. For St. Louis, Jimmy Snuggerud (15G, 22A, 0.86 xG/60, 11.9% shooting, 2 hard-chance goals) mirrors Laferriere's role, while Dylan Holloway (13G, 24A, 0.82 xG/60, 10.8% shooting, 1 hard-chance goal) deepens the attack.

Defensively, Los Angeles will trust Adrian Kempe as a key matchup piece—a known liability. St. Louis will depend on everyone else to absorb the Kings' territorial pressure. The edge goes to whichever team can impose its will at five-on-five—a tossup when the underlying numbers suggest neither has one.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

LAK
Alex Laferriere16G 18A
0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
Jared Wright0G 4A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters