Backcheck
Recap · VGK at LAK

Golden Knights edge the Kings in overtime

The Golden Knights stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.71–3.62 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 12, 12:44 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
VGK
Vegas Golden Knights
3
Home
LAK
Los Angeles Kings
2
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.71Expected goals3.62
57% share for the better side
27Shot attempts (SOG)24
4High-danger chances7
43Corsi (all attempts)61
Score-adjusted: 39% / 61%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Vegas stole this one. Los Angeles commanded expected goals 57–43, piling up 3.62 xG to Vegas's 2.71, controlled high-danger chances 7–4, yet lost 3–2 in overtime. The Kings did everything except finish.

The heist was A. Schmid. Vegas's goaltender posted a 0.917 save percentage and stopped 1.62 goals above expected—the difference between a Kings win and a Knights escape. D. Kuemper was solid for LA (0.889 SV%, 24/27 saves), but his team couldn't capitalize on dominance.

Vegas won the game on rush defense. The Knights converted three goals from 22 rush chances—a lethal rate that punished every LA breakout. Mark Stone's wrist shot from the slot at 00:25 of overtime ended it, a goal that had no right to win the game given the context.

LA generated 10 rebound opportunities and converted two; Vegas created three and converted zero. Yet the Kings underperformed their xG by 1.6 goals. They had the looks, but not the finish.

J. Eichel led with three assists in 19:01 for Vegas. K. Fiala (1G, 1A in 22:25) and M. Stone (1G, 1A in 19:58) paced the offense. Neither LA's shot volume nor their quality-chance edge mattered—one goaltender's performance and one rush collapse decided it.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VGK1 / 4 · 1.06 xG
LAK2 / 7 · 1.59 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VGK2 / 10 · 1.16 xG
LAK0 / 14 · 1.57 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VGK0 / 29 · 0.49 xG
LAK0 / 40 · 0.45 xG

LAK went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.57 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VGK
3 G · 2.71 xG · +0.3
LAK
2 G · 3.62 xG · -1.6
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
A. SchmidVGK
+1.6
D. KuemperLAK
-0.3

VGK finished +0.3 against expected, LAK -1.6 — A. Schmid (VGK) saved 1.6 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VGK
WRIST3/20
SLAP0/3
SNAP0/1
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
POKE0/0
OTHER0/13
LAK
WRIST1/22
SLAP0/5
SNAP1/7
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/21
VGK
LAK
Off the rush
3 G on 22 · 2.24 xG
0 G on 21 · 2.01 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3 · 0.37 xG
2 G on 10 · 1.40 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: VGK went 3-for-20, LAK 1-for-22. VGK scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Eichel
#9 · C · VGK
0 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 19:01 TOI · +1
K. Fiala
#22 · L · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 22:25 TOI · +1
M. Stone
#61 · R · VGK
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:58 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • VGK stole this one. LAK owned 57% of the xG and lost.
  • VGK generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • A. Schmid (VGK) stopped 1.6 goals above expected.
  • VGK was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 22 rush chances.
  • LAK created 10 rebound opportunities (2 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VGK created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • LAK underperformed xG by 1.6 — wasted quality chances.
  • A. Schmid (VGK) saved 1.6 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · VGK at LAK · 10:00 PM ET

Golden Knights at Kings: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 12:42 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

50%
LAK
Model favorite
50%
50%
VGK50LAK

LAK by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VGK 2.42.4 LAK; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

VGK← edge
edge →LAK
54.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
52.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.52xGF / 602.42
2.11xGA / 602.20
2.12Goals for / gm1.85
2.10Goals against / gm1.71
0.983PDO — luck, not skill1.002

VGK holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.983 vs 1.002) says LAK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.4–2.4 tie with the Kings at 50% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The teams are evenly matched at 5v5: Vegas holds a 54.0% expected-goal share to Los Angeles's 52.0%, but both clubs post identical 52.0% Corsi ratings. The underlying shot dynamics don't break the tie.

Vegas is due for positive regression. The Golden Knights' PDO sits at 0.983—running cold—while Los Angeles has run hot at 1.002. PDO gaps typically converge.

D. Kuemper starts on the second leg of a back-to-back. Watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

Key Performers

Tomas Hertl anchors Vegas's forward group: 0.88 expected goals per 60 minutes, 5 goals, 17 assists, 1 high-danger goal, and a 4.3% shooting rate. Brandon Saad carries higher shot volume (0.91 xG/60, 3 goals, 6 assists, 1 high-danger goal) and a 4.1% shooting rate, though he's marked inactive.

Los Angeles counters with Alex Laferriere, quietly one of the league's most prolific finishers: 0.87 xG/60, 16 goals, 18 assists, 2 high-danger goals, and 9.9% shooting. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60) has recorded 4 assists despite remaining scoreless.

Defensive Vulnerabilities

Rasmus Andersson represents Vegas's defensive weak link. Adrian Kempe fills the same role for Los Angeles. Neither team has generated high-danger or rebound goals at a meaningful rate—0% across both categories—suggesting neither squad is capitalizing on grinding offensive sequences.

The tightness in underlying metrics reflects genuine competitive balance. Vegas's 54.0% expected-goal edge is marginal and within noise. Los Angeles's efficiency cannot sustain. In a 50-50 game, marginal advantages—lineup decisions, goaltender availability, and variance—become decisive.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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