Recap · LAK at NJD

Devils hold off the Kings

The Devils stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.32–3.89 and won anyway.

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:08 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity

Away

LAK

Los Angeles Kings

Home

NJD

New Jersey Devils

FINAL

Process vs result

The underlying story

4.32Expected goals3.89

53% share for the better side

31Shot attempts (SOG)28

6High-danger chances6

68Corsi (all attempts)58

Score-adjusted: 56% / 44%

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

New Jersey won 6-4 despite trailing in expected goals (3.89–4.32). The Devils finished 2.11 above their xG—variance that counted.

Power play split: both teams scored twice (Devils on 7 shots at 0.92 xG; Kings on 8 at 1.01 xG). Identical efficiency. The game was decided elsewhere.

N. Hischier (2 goals, 2 assists) converted. J. Allen (0.871 SV%) saved tight chances. A. Forsberg (22 saves on 27 shots, 0.815 SV%) underperformed by 1.11 goals—a real shortfall.

High-danger chances deadlocked 6-6. Rebounds told the story: six created by New Jersey (two goals), nine by Los Angeles (zero goals). Rush production mirrored: both three goals each, but the Kings needed 30 chances to New Jersey's 25. Efficiency favored the Devils.

Timo Meier's snap shot from the wing (third period, 19:52) settled the game. New Jersey's efficiency—Hischier's finishes, Allen's save rate—overrode Los Angeles's volume. The Devils played fewer chances, sharper. The Kings played more, duller. On the scoreboard, sharp won.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

LAK1 / 6 · 1.52 xG

NJD2 / 6 · 1.71 xG

Medium dangermid-range

LAK2 / 18 · 2.01 xG

NJD4 / 14 · 1.65 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

LAK1 / 44 · 0.79 xG

NJD0 / 38 · 0.53 xG

NJD went 4-for-14 from medium danger on 1.65 expected goals — 2.4 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

LAK

4 G · 4.32 xG · -0.3

NJD

6 G · 3.89 xG · +2.1

01234567

Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)

A. ForsbergLAK

-1.1

J. AllenNJD

+0.3

LAK finished -0.3 against expected, NJD +2.1 — A. Forsberg (LAK) allowed 1.1 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

LAK

SNAP1/18

WRIST1/16

TIP IN1/8

SLAP1/8

BACKHAND0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/15

NJD

SNAP4/16

WRIST1/16

TIP IN1/5

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/3

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/15

LAK

NJD

Off the rush

3 G on 30 · 2.67 xG

3 G on 25 · 2.04 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 9 · 1.14 xG

2 G on 6 · 0.87 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 1-for-18, NJD 4-for-16. LAK scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types

Three stars · computed, not voted

N. Hischier

#13 · C · NJD

2 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 20:26 TOI

A. Panarin

#10 · L · LAK

1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:20 TOI · -2

B. Clarke

#92 · D · LAK

0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 20:19 TOI · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model flagged

A. Forsberg (LAK) gave up 1.1 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
NJD was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 25 rush chances.
LAK was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 30 rush chances.
NJD created 6 rebound opportunities (2 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
LAK created 9 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
NJD outperformed their expected goals by 2.1 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
NJD power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 7 PP shots (0.92 xG).
LAK power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 8 PP shots (1.01 xG).

Preview · LAK at NJD · 7:00 PM ET

Kings at Devils: a genuine coin flip

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:06 AMEdited for clarity

Win probability

The model's lean

50%

LAK

Model favorite

50%

LAK50NJD

LAK by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.5–2.5 NJD; 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 →NJD

52.0%5v5 xG%50.0%

52.0%Corsi%51.0%

2.42xGF / 602.45

2.20xGA / 602.50

1.85Goals for / gm1.66

1.71Goals against / gm2.23

1.002PDO — luck, not skill0.971

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.002 vs 0.971) says LAK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a LAK 2.5 - 2.5 NJD game. The Kings sit at 50% win probability — as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The Kings are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10, a sign that underlying play hasn't matched results. But their 5v5 xG% of 52.0% and Corsi% of 52.0% indicate they've been the better team in sustained play. The Devils' xG% (50.0%) and Corsi% (51.0%) are slightly lower, keeping them in a tighter margin. New Jersey's PDO sits at 0.971 — they're running cold on puck luck, and regression favors them tonight. Los Angeles counters with a PDO of 1.002, which is neutral to slightly above expected, meaning their goal-getting tracks closer to their chance creation.

The goaltending question looms: D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back. Whether that means a tired starter or a backup kickoff remains uncertain, but New Jersey should exploit any opening in goal. Both teams generate few high-danger chances: LAK sits at 0% HD goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate; NJD matches that output. Expect low-event hockey. LAK's defensive weak link is Adrian Kempe; NJD's is Johnathan Kovacevic.

Alex Laferriere leads LA's scoring. Jared Wright provides depth scoring. Timo Meier and Jack Hughes drive New Jersey's offense.

Players to Watch

Los Angeles

Alex Laferriere — 0.87 xG/60, 16G 18A, 2 HD goals, 9.9% shooting
Jared Wright — 0.83 xG/60, 0G 4A

New Jersey

Timo Meier — 1.08 xG/60, 13G 15A, 3 HD goals, 6.7% shooting
Jack Hughes — 0.88 xG/60, 18G 17A, 1 HD goals, 11.5% shooting

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

NJD

Timo Meier13G 15A

1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh

Jack Hughes18G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh

Source · MoneyPuck skaters