Backcheck
Recap · STL at LAK

Kings edge the Blues in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 12, 9:54 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
STL
St. Louis Blues
1
Home
LAK
Los Angeles Kings
2
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.37Expected goals3.19
51% share for the better side
24Shot attempts (SOG)26
4High-danger chances5
65Corsi (all attempts)51
Score-adjusted: 57% / 43%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Expected goals called this game for the Blues—3.37 to 3.19—yet Los Angeles won 2-1 anyway. The Kings held 52% of shot attempts (26–24 on goal) but the Blues generated more quality chances, a structural advantage that the scoreboard ultimately overruled.

Goaltending decided it. A. Forsberg (LAK) saved 2.37 goals above expected, while J. Binnington (STL) saved 1.19. St. Louis underperformed its xG by 2.37 goals—they got the openings, then couldn't convert. The Kings were efficient: 2 goals on 28 rush chances, converting when it mattered most. High-danger chances finished 5–4 in Los Angeles' favor.

Trevor Moore's snap shot from the slot at 01:56 of overtime was the end of it. Before that: the Blues created 7 rebound opportunities, the Kings 3, neither scoring a second chance.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL0 / 4 · 0.92 xG
LAK1 / 5 · 1.46 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL1 / 17 · 1.92 xG
LAK1 / 14 · 1.30 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL0 / 44 · 0.52 xG
LAK0 / 32 · 0.42 xG

STL went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.92 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
1 G · 3.37 xG · -2.4
LAK
2 G · 3.19 xG · -1.2
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. BinningtonSTL
+1.2
A. ForsbergLAK
+2.4

STL finished -2.4 against expected, LAK -1.2 — A. Forsberg (LAK) saved 2.4 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
WRIST0/23
SNAP0/5
BACKHAND0/5
TIP IN0/3
SLAP0/2
DEFLECTED1/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/24
LAK
WRIST1/21
SNAP1/3
BACKHAND0/3
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/4
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/15
STL
LAK
Off the rush
0 G on 24 · 1.98 xG
2 G on 28 · 2.83 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7 · 0.84 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.30 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-23, LAK 1-for-21. LAK scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
P. Broberg
#6 · D · STL
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:16 TOI · +1
D. Doughty
#8 · D · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 22:20 TOI · +1
A. Panarin
#10 · L · LAK
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:01 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • J. Binnington (STL) stopped 1.2 goals above expected.
  • LAK was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 28 rush chances.
  • LAK created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • STL created 7 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • STL underperformed xG by 2.4 — wasted quality chances.
  • A. Forsberg (LAK) saved 2.4 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · STL at LAK · 9:00 PM ET

Blues at Kings: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 9:51 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

55%
LAK
Model favorite
45%
55%
STL50LAK

LAK by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.32.5 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

STL← edge
edge →LAK
49.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
48.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.34xGF / 602.42
2.40xGA / 602.20
2.00Goals for / gm1.85
2.12Goals against / gm1.71
1.000PDO — luck, not skill1.002

LAK holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.000 vs 1.002) says LAK has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.3–2.5 range with the Kings at 55% win probability—the kind of edge that barely qualifies as a verdict.

Los Angeles owns the territorial battle convincingly. At 5v5, the Kings generate 52.0% expected goals to St. Louis's 49.0%, and they drive Corsi at 52.0% to the Blues' 48.0%. Both teams sit near 1.000 PDO, so fortune has been neutral. Yet the Kings are -5 in goal differential over their last 10, the sort of negative variance that often precedes a correction. Their underlying advantage hasn't translated to results.

The rest advantage leans Los Angeles. The Kings get three days between games; the Blues arrive on one. St. Louis will hand the workload to J. Hofer on a back-to-back—he may split starts, or the team may send a tired starter into an already difficult matchup.

Players to Watch

STL

  • Jimmy Snuggerud — 0.86 xG/60, 15G 22A, 2 HD goals, 11.9% shooting
  • Dylan Holloway — 0.82 xG/60, 13G 24A, 1 HD goals, 10.8% shooting

LAK

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

Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15 goals) and Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals) anchor St. Louis's offensive engine. Los Angeles counters with Laferriere at 0.87 xG/60, who edges Snuggerud in efficiency while matching his 2 high-danger goals and leading 16 to 15 in overall scoring. Wright, at 0.83 xG/60 with 4 assists and no goals, remains a finishing liability the Blues will probe.

The model has priced this correctly at nearly even odds. The Kings' underlying advantage is real, the rest edge is real, and the goaltending mismatch favors them. The negative goal differential is not a signal—it's lag. Take the edge where the math finds it.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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