Recap · LAK at COL

Avalanche run the Kings off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:19 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity

Away

LAK

Los Angeles Kings

Home

COL

Colorado Avalanche

FINAL

Process vs result

The underlying story

2.12Expected goals3.81

64% share for the better side

25Shot attempts (SOG)26

2High-danger chances4

53Corsi (all attempts)59

Score-adjusted: 50% / 50%

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Avalanche won 5-2, and the shots were nearly tied at 26-25. The expected goals told a different story: Colorado controlled 64% (3.81–2.12), revealing a clear separation in opportunity quality.

Efficiency separated them. Colorado generated 0.065 expected goals per shot against Los Angeles's 0.040. The Avalanche converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances and scored twice on 26 rush attempts, while Los Angeles scored twice on 23 rush attempts but failed to convert any rebound opportunities.

M. Blackwood (COL) saved 23 of 25 shots (0.920 SV%), compared to A. Forsberg (LAK) at 21 of 25 (0.840 SV%). Colorado overperformed their expected goals by 1.19, a mark of clinical execution.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK1 / 2 · 0.48 xG

COL2 / 4 · 1.24 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK0 / 11 · 1.07 xG

COL2 / 19 · 1.90 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK1 / 40 · 0.58 xG

COL1 / 36 · 0.67 xG

LAK went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.07 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 · 2.12 xG · -0.1

COL

5 G · 3.81 xG · +1.2

0123456

Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)

A. ForsbergLAK

-0.2

M. BlackwoodCOL

+0.1

LAK finished -0.1 against expected, COL +1.2 — A. Forsberg (LAK) allowed 0.2 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

WRIST1/24

SNAP0/6

TIP IN1/8

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP0/3

POKE0/0

OTHER0/10

COL

WRIST3/28

SNAP1/7

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND1/5

SLAP0/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/12

LAK

COL

Off the rush

2 G on 23 · 1.55 xG

2 G on 26 · 2.06 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3 · 0.32 xG

2 G on 5 · 0.70 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-24, COL 3-for-28. LAK scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types

Three stars · computed, not voted

N. MacKinnon

#29 · C · COL

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:08 TOI · +1

B. Nelson

#11 · C · COL

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:21 TOI · +1

C. Makar

#8 · D · COL

1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 21:38 TOI · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model flagged

LAK generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
COL generated far more dangerous chances — 0.065 xG/shot vs 0.040. Quality over quantity.
COL was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/4 on HD chances (50%).
COL was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 26 rush chances.
LAK was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 23 rush chances.
COL created 5 rebound opportunities (2 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
LAK created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.

Before the game — the model's pre-game read

Preview · LAK at COL · 9:00 PM ET

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

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:17 PMEdited for clarity

Win probability

The model's lean

57%

COL

Model favorite

43%

57%

LAK50COL

COL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.4–2.8 COL; 18% 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 →COL

52.0%5v5 xG%57.0%

52.0%Corsi%57.0%

2.42xGF / 603.03

2.20xGA / 602.30

1.85Goals for / gm2.63

1.71Goals against / gm1.56

1.002PDO — luck, not skill1.021

COL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.002 vs 1.021) says COL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Colorado dominates the underlying play at 5v5. With 57.0% expected goals and 57.0% Corsi against LA's 52.0% on both metrics, the Avalanche project a 2.4–2.8 goal win and 57% win probability. That territorial tilt is the edge.

But PDO flags a ceiling. Colorado runs 1.021—hot by historical standards—against LA's 1.002. Regression is coming; the question is when.

Colorado's recent form suggests it won't matter. They're 9-0-1 in their last 10, the hotter team by points pace.

Both squads face goaltending jeopardy on back-to-backs. S. Wedgewood and A. Forsberg are each candidates for either a backup start or a tired starter. Whoever gets fresher goaltending gains an edge.

Colorado's offensive weight falls on Artturi Lehkonen, who generates 1.11 xG/60 while running 18 goals and 22 assists at 14.9% shooting, with 6 high-danger finishes. Ross Colton operates at 1.10 xG/60 with 7 goals and 15 assists, but his 4.9% shooting—1 high-danger finish—leaves room for negative regression. LA's primary threat is Alex Laferriere, who drives 0.87 xG/60 into 16 goals and 18 assists at 9.9% shooting, including 2 high-danger goals. Jared Wright complements him at 0.83 xG/60 with 4 assists and no goals—a winger running cold.

Adrian Kempe is LA's defensive liability. Nazem Kadri is Colorado's. Each team should hunt those mismatches.

The lean is Colorado's, provided PDO remains stable and the goaltending lottery breaks right.

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

COL

Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A

1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh

Ross Colton7G 15A

1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh

Source · MoneyPuck skaters

◆ Back to the front page