Backcheck
Recap · VAN at LAK

Kings edge the Canucks in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 11, 6:21 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
VAN
Vancouver Canucks
1
Home
LAK
Los Angeles Kings
2
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.30Expected goals3.05
57% share for the better side
20Shot attempts (SOG)23
2High-danger chances3
51Corsi (all attempts)54
Score-adjusted: 49% / 51%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

K. Lankinen stopped 1.05 goals above expected—an elite performance that kept the Canucks alive in a game they were losing underneath. The Kings controlled 57% of 5v5 expected goals (3.05–2.30), held 54% of shot attempts (23–20 on goal), and won high-danger chances 3–2. Yet Lankinen held the line until overtime.

A. Kempe finished it at 03:58 of OT with a snap shot from the high slot. Kempe did the heavy lifting—1 goal, 1 assist in 18:19—with support from #55 Q. Byfield (1A, 22:07) and #2 B. Dumoulin (1A, 21:47).

Both teams underperformed their expected goals. The Kings left 1.05 on the ice; Vancouver left 1.30. A. Forsberg (LAK) stopped 1.30 goals above expected in a compact 20-shot night, but the Kings' underlying control made underperformance survivable. For Vancouver, it wasn't.

Net-front activity separated the teams. LA generated 7 rebound opportunities and converted 1—finish discipline in a tight game. The Kings' shot volume and high-danger edge meant they carried the play into sudden death, even as both goalies outperformed their expected results.

The 2-1 overtime result aligned with the Kings' 57% xG dominance.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VAN1 / 2 · 0.40 xG
LAK1 / 3 · 0.65 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VAN0 / 12 · 1.25 xG
LAK1 / 17 · 1.93 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VAN0 / 37 · 0.65 xG
LAK0 / 34 · 0.47 xG

VAN went 0-for-12 from medium danger on 1.25 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VAN
1 G · 2.30 xG · -1.3
LAK
2 G · 3.05 xG · -1.1
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. LankinenVAN
+1.0
A. ForsbergLAK
+1.3

VAN finished -1.3 against expected, LAK -1.1 — A. Forsberg (LAK) saved 1.3 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VAN
WRIST0/30
SNAP1/3
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/1
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/11
LAK
WRIST0/17
SNAP2/10
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/2
BAT0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/16
VAN
LAK
Off the rush
1 G on 27 · 1.75 xG
1 G on 19 · 1.71 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.29 xG
1 G on 7 · 1.05 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VAN went 0-for-30, LAK 0-for-17.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
A. Kempe
#9 · R · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 18:19 TOI · +2
Q. Byfield
#55 · R · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:07 TOI · +1
B. Dumoulin
#2 · D · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:47 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • K. Lankinen (VAN) stopped 1.0 goals above expected.
  • LAK created 7 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · VAN at LAK · 10:00 PM ET

The Kings are the model's lean over the Canucks — with PDO regression in play

By the ModelJul 11, 6:18 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

59%
LAK
Model favorite
41%
59%
VAN50LAK

LAK by 18 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score VAN 2.22.8 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

VAN← edge
edge →LAK
44.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
46.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.22xGF / 602.42
2.81xGA / 602.20
1.60Goals for / gm1.85
2.56Goals against / gm1.71
0.974PDO — luck, not skill1.002

LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.974 vs 1.002) says LAK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.2–2.8 LAK victory with the Kings at 59% win probability. That edge rests on form and the play underneath.

Los Angeles has momentum: 5-2-3 in their last 10. Vancouver is stalled at -7 goal differential over the same stretch. That gap isn't coincidence.

The Kings dominate in the metrics that predict the future. They control 52.0% of expected goals and 52.0% of Corsi—they're pushing Vancouver around territorially and forcing them to defend. Vancouver's 44.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi tell you exactly who's in control at 5v5.

The Canucks' 0.974 PDO offers a glimmer of hope. That's a team running cold, and cold teams regress toward average. If Vancouver gets even one bounce, the game tightens. But hope isn't a wager.

Goaltending compounds the chaos. Both D. Kuemper and N. Tolopilo are on back-to-backs. Watch for a backup or a tired starter—either changes the complexion.

For Vancouver, Filip Chytil is the wild card: 1.03 xG/60, 3 goals, 1 high-danger chance, shooting at an unsustainable 15.0%. Drew O'Connor (0.85 xG/60, 13 goals, 11 assists, 3 high-danger chances, 11.8% shooting) is the higher-floor threat.

Los Angeles has Alex Laferriere running hot: 0.87 xG/60, 16 goals, 18 assists, 2 high-danger chances, 9.9% shooting. That's sustainable production. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60, 0 goals, 4 assists) doesn't need the scoresheet to matter.

Los Angeles is the lean here. Their edge in controlled play is real, and Vancouver's PDO won't save them tonight.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

VAN
Filip Chytil3G 0A
1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
Drew O'Connor13G 11A
0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% 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