Backcheck
Recap · WPG at LAK

Kings shut out the Jets, 3-0

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

By the ModelJul 11, 2:39 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
0
Home
LAK
Los Angeles Kings
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.56Expected goals4.24
62% share for the better side
23Shot attempts (SOG)26
2High-danger chances8
49Corsi (all attempts)56
Score-adjusted: 50% / 50%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Kings' shutout masks how much the Jets underperformed their expected goals. Winnipeg created 2.56 xG but scored zero; Los Angeles expected 4.24 and got three. The underlying story: both teams left goals on the table, Winnipeg catastrophically.

Los Angeles controlled 62% of 5v5 expected goals and dominated the high-danger chances 8–2. Drew Doughty's wrist shot from the top of the circles (P3, 19:06) stood as the turning point. The Kings' dominance in shot quality mattered more than volume: they generated 0.076 xG per shot versus Winnipeg's 0.052. The Kings' rush game was the differentiator: two goals on 24 chances, a clinical conversion rate that widened the gap.

D. Kuemper made 23 saves on 23 shots (1.000 SV%), stopping 2.56 goals above expected. C. Hellebuyck stopped 23 of 25 for Winnipeg (0.920 SV%, +2.24), holding his team in a game where they generated high-quality chances but couldn't finish. Both teams created three rebound opportunities and converted zero, a wash that leaves Winnipeg's goaltending as the sole bright spot. Hellebuyck stole the show on a night when his team's execution fell short.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG0 / 2 · 0.43 xG
LAK2 / 8 · 2.73 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG0 / 15 · 1.44 xG
LAK1 / 11 · 0.99 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG0 / 32 · 0.69 xG
LAK0 / 37 · 0.52 xG

WPG went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.44 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
0 G · 2.56 xG · -2.6
LAK
3 G · 4.24 xG · -1.2
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. HellebuyckWPG
+2.2
D. KuemperLAK
+2.6

WPG finished -2.6 against expected, LAK -1.2 — D. Kuemper (LAK) saved 2.6 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
WRIST0/16
SNAP0/7
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/10
LAK
WRIST2/17
SNAP1/6
BACKHAND0/8
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/5
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/17
WPG
LAK
Off the rush
0 G on 18 · 1.22 xG
2 G on 24 · 2.30 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3 · 0.40 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.31 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: WPG went 0-for-16, LAK 2-for-17. LAK scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
D. Doughty
#8 · D · LAK
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 23:22 TOI · +2
Q. Byfield
#55 · R · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:15 TOI
M. Anderson
#44 · D · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 18:59 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • WPG generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • C. Hellebuyck (WPG) stopped 2.2 goals above expected.
  • LAK generated far more dangerous chances — 0.076 xG/shot vs 0.052. Quality over quantity.
  • LAK was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 24 rush chances.
  • LAK created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • WPG created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • WPG underperformed xG by 2.6 — wasted quality chances.
  • C. Hellebuyck (WPG) saved 2.2 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • D. Kuemper (LAK) saved 2.6 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · WPG at LAK · 10:30 PM ET

The Kings are the model's lean over the Jets on the underlying numbers

By the ModelJul 11, 2:38 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

56%
LAK
Model favorite
44%
56%
WPG50LAK

LAK by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 2.32.6 LAK; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

WPG← edge
edge →LAK
48.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
49.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.34xGF / 602.42
2.55xGA / 602.20
1.90Goals for / gm1.85
2.10Goals against / gm1.71
0.998PDO — luck, not skill1.002

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.998 vs 1.002) says LAK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Los Angeles has the underlying advantage here. The model projects a 2.3–2.6 goal Kings win with Los Angeles at 56% to take it, built on season-long dominance in 5v5 play: 52.0% expected goals against 48.0% for Winnipeg, and 52.0% Corsi that should translate to territorial control throughout.

Winnipeg's recent form—8-2-0 in their last 10—masks the structural gap. The Kings dominate expected goals (52.0% vs. 48.0%) and territory (52.0% Corsi%), the kind of persistent advantage that tends to compound.

The matchup turns on shot quality and efficiency. Nino Niederreiter carries Winnipeg's offense at 0.87 xG per 60 minutes with 6 goals and 6 assists, converting 3 of his high-danger chances at 8.6%. Kyle Connor generates 0.83 xG/60 but has been more clinical—25 goals, 30 assists, 13.0% shooting—on just 2 high-danger conversions. For Los Angeles, Alex Laferriere matches Niederreiter's 0.87 xG/60 with 16 goals and 18 assists (2 HD conversions at 9.9%), while Jared Wright has 0 goals on 4 assists at 0.83 xG/60.

Winnipeg's defensive weak link is Colin Miller. Los Angeles's is Adrian Kempe. Neither team converts off rebounds or high-danger situations beyond a nominal rate—both at 0%—which means this contest likely hinges on the volume battle the underlying numbers already favor. The Kings' territorial advantage, combined with Winnipeg's heavier reliance on depth scoring, makes Los Angeles the leaner play.

Players to Watch

Winnipeg: Nino Niederreiter (0.87 xG/60, 6G 6A, 3 HD goals, 8.6% shooting); Kyle Connor (0.83 xG/60, 25G 30A, 2 HD goals, 13.0% shooting)

Los Angeles: Alex Laferriere (0.87 xG/60, 16G 18A, 2 HD goals, 9.9% shooting); Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0G 4A)

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters