Skip to content
Ice Lab

Sat, Feb 28, 2026·Crypto.com Arena, Los Angeles

Calgary Flames 0, Los Angeles Kings 2

Expected result

Based on shot quality alone, Los Angeles Kings win this game 70% of the time.

LAK winsCGY wins

By period

Goals and shots on goal in each period.

TeamP1P2P3Total
CGY01401005029
LAK01311519237

Goals, with shots on goal in grey.

Scoring

Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.

  1. P2 15:36LAKAlex LaferriereGWGAssists: Quinton Byfield, Trevor Moore · Wrist, 0.14 xG0–1
  2. P3 19:22LAKAdrian KempeENAssists: Artemi Panarin · Backhand, 0.53 xG0–2

Replay

Watch the game unfold on the ice: every shot, hit, turnover and faceoff appears as it happened, then fades. Drag the timeline to jump; goals are marked on it.

CGY00 SOG · 0.0 xG

20:00

P1

0.0 xG · 0 SOG0LAK
47% to win53% to win
← CGY attackLAK attack →
  1. P1 20:00Kadri won the faceoff against Kopitar
  • Goal
  • Shot
  • Miss
  • Block
  • Hit
  • Takeaway
  • Giveaway
  • Faceoff
  • Penalty

The numbers

Team totals, side by side.

CGYLAK
29Shots on goal37
2.6Expected goals3.8
70Shot attempts70
26Faceoffs won29
0Power plays0
0Penalty minutes0
20Hits26
14Blocked shots20
10Giveaways16
4Takeaways5

Line combinations that worked

Model-based

Each team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.

Calgary Flames

Forward lines

  1. bestKadri – Farabee – Klapka5:57

    xG 0.96–0.16 (86%)attempts 15–4goals 0–0

  2. Coleman – Frost – Gridin11:57

    xG 0.59–0.37 (61%)attempts 15–11goals 0–0

  3. Backlund – Sharangovich – Coronato11:13

    xG 0.22–0.58 (28%)attempts 9–17goals 0–0

  4. Kadri – Farabee – Zary9:18

    xG 0.26–0.76 (26%)attempts 8–12goals 0–1

Defence pairs

  1. bestWhitecloud – Kuznetsov18:26

    xG 1.45–0.88 (62%)attempts 28–26goals 0–0

  2. Kuznetsov – Parekh2:03

    xG 0.27–0.03 (90%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0

  3. Whitecloud – Bahl2:09

    xG 0.01–0.04 (23%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0

Los Angeles Kings

Forward lines

  1. bestMoore – Byfield – Laferriere16:30

    xG 1.21–0.35 (78%)attempts 22–11goals 1–0

  2. Malott – Helenius – Ward8:35

    xG 0.49–0.34 (59%)attempts 14–14goals 0–0

  3. Perry – Foegele – Turcotte9:09

    xG 0.45–0.30 (60%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0

  4. Kopitar – Kempe – Panarin15:03

    xG 0.88–1.25 (41%)attempts 18–23goals 0–0

Defence pairs

  1. bestDumoulin – Ceci2:33

    xG 0.47–0.05 (91%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0

  2. Ceci – Anderson18:12

    xG 0.85–0.56 (60%)attempts 19–15goals 1–0

  3. Dumoulin – Moverare11:44

    xG 0.44–0.25 (64%)attempts 15–14goals 0–0

How the game flowed

Model-based

Chance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.

Expected goals flow

Running total of expected goals for each team. Steep climbs are spells of pressure; dots are goals. Shaded bands mark power plays (team colour), 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 (grey) and empty nets.

LAK 3.8 xGCGY 2.6 xG
01234P1P2P3EndxG

Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute

LAKCGY

Win probability

Model-based

How each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.

Win probability

LAK's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line LAK is favoured, below it CGY. Dots are goals.

Excitement 0/100 · #1310 of 1312 this seasonSwing 0.56 · 2 goals in reachComeback index 49% (winner's lowest chance)
CGY 100%5050%50LAK 100%P1P2P3EndBiggest swing +28 pts

Did the better team win?

Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.

Based on shot quality alone, Los Angeles Kings win this game 70% of the time.

LAK winsCGY wins

Simulated goal difference (LAK − CGY), 10,000 replays

-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7

The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).