Backcheck
Recap · LAK at CGY

Flames edge the Kings in a shootout

The Flames won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

By the ModelJul 12, 8:47 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
LAK
Los Angeles Kings
2
Home
CGY
Calgary Flames
3
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.04Expected goals3.00
50% share for the better side
25Shot attempts (SOG)23
5High-danger chances6
55Corsi (all attempts)51
Score-adjusted: 49% / 51%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Kings generated the game's best chances — 3.04 expected goals to Calgary's 3.00 — but scored only two. That 1.04-goal miss despite superior positioning is the story of Calgary's shootout win: elite expected quality went unrewarded.

Los Angeles drew five high-danger chances and converted zero. Calgary drew six and buried one. D. Wolf stopped all five high-danger chances he faced (0.920 SV%). D. Kuemper made 21 of 23 saves (0.913 SV%), outperforming his expected value by one goal. On the rush, both teams scored twice: the Kings on 23 chances, Calgary on 26. The game turned in the shootout, where Yegor Sharangovich's wrist shot from the doorstep decided it.

Q. Byfield led Los Angeles with two goals in 19:50. O. Maatta scored for Calgary.

Three Stars

  • #55 Q. Byfield (LAK) — 2G in 19:50
  • #8 D. Doughty (LAK) — 1A in 25:48
  • #3 O. Maatta (CGY) — 1G in 20:25
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK0 / 5 · 1.06 xG
CGY1 / 6 · 1.37 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK2 / 15 · 1.53 xG
CGY1 / 12 · 1.27 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK0 / 35 · 0.45 xG
CGY0 / 33 · 0.36 xG

LAK went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.06 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 · 3.04 xG · -1.0
CGY
3 G · 3.00 xG · +0.0
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
D. KuemperLAK
+1.0
D. WolfCGY
+1.0

LAK finished -1.0 against expected, CGY +0.0 — D. Wolf (CGY) saved 1.0 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
WRIST0/16
BACKHAND1/8
SNAP1/7
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/2
BAT0/0
OTHER0/16
CGY
WRIST2/22
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/3
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/5
BAT0/2
OTHER0/15
LAK
CGY
Off the rush
2 G on 23 · 1.99 xG
2 G on 26 · 2.44 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4 · 0.21 xG
0 G on 2 · 0.26 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: LAK went 0-for-16, CGY 2-for-22. LAK scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
Q. Byfield
#55 · R · LAK
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 19:50 TOI · +1
D. Doughty
#8 · D · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 25:48 TOI · +1
O. Maatta
#3 · D · CGY
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 20:25 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • D. Kuemper (LAK) stopped 1.0 goals above expected.
  • LAK couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • CGY was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • LAK was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • LAK created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • D. Wolf was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · LAK at CGY · 9:00 PM ET

Kings at Flames: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 8:46 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

53%
LAK
Model favorite
53%
47%
LAK50CGY

LAK by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score LAK 2.52.4 CGY; 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 →CGY
52.0%5v5 xG%47.0%
52.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.42xGF / 602.36
2.20xGA / 602.66
1.85Goals for / gm1.76
1.71Goals against / gm2.15
1.002PDO — luck, not skill0.985

LAK holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.002 vs 0.985) says LAK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Los Angeles has the better team, but Calgary is due for mean reversion—this matchup hinges on whether probability catches up in one night.

The model projects 2.5-2.4 Kings with Los Angeles at 53% win probability, which means this is functionally a pick'em. The underlying play favors the visitors decisively: Los Angeles generates 52.0% expected goals at even strength against Calgary's 47.0%, and their Corsi advantage (52.0% to 49.0%) reflects consistent territorial control. The Flames, meanwhile, have fallen to -8 goal differential over their last 10—proof that their play hasn't been masking deeper issues.

Calgary's escape hatch is its PDO of 0.985, a cold-running indicator that historically precedes positive regression. Los Angeles carries a 1.002 PDO, slightly above neutral and more sustainable. Both goaltenders enter on back-to-backs—D. Cooley and D. Kuemper could see backup duty or simply show fatigue.

Los Angeles leans on Alex Laferriere, who generates 0.87 expected goals per 60 minutes, has 16 goals and 18 assists, owns 2 high-danger markers, and shoots 9.9%. Jared Wright contributes 0.83 xG/60 with 4 assists across 0 goals. Calgary counters with Blake Coleman at 0.89 xG/60 (16G, 12A, 2 high-danger, 11.4% shooting) and Matt Coronato at 0.80 xG/60 (10G, 16A, 6.6% shooting).

The forward talent and territorial edge both tilt toward Los Angeles, but Calgary's PDO gap is large enough that regression could swing this. If the Flames catch up to their true talent while the Kings regress, Los Angeles' underlying advantage evaporates within a single game. That's the coin flip the model is capturing.

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
CGY
Blake Coleman16G 12A
0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.4% sh
Matt Coronato10G 16A
0.80 xG/60 · 0 HD · 6.6% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters