Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
← Thu, Oct 9 · the slate
Breakdown · UTA at COL

Avalanche hold off the Utah

FinalThu, Oct 9
UTAUtah Hockey Club1COLColorado Avalanche2
The verdict · coin flip

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

UTA 1 · COL 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:06 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Utah had superior expected goals and wasted the advantage. Colorado's 2–1 victory conceals the real scorecard: expected goals favored Utah 3.24–3.21, yet they underperformed by 2.24 goals. S. Wedgewood's dominance in goal decided the game.

Utah's offensive collapse was complete. The team created four rebound opportunities and converted zero—a critical miss in high-danger areas. Colorado converted with precision: two goals on 19 rush attempts, enough efficiency to overcome Utah's territorial edge. K. Vejmelka (UTA) posted a strong individual performance (+1.21 goals above expected), but it couldn't compensate for the team's offensive void.

S. Wedgewood saved 2.24 goals above expected on 33 shots, sustaining Colorado despite their own underperformance (3.21 expected goals, 2 scored). Nathan MacKinnon's wrist shot from the top of the circles in the third period (2:52) was the decisive margin.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 9
UTA
1
COL
2

Avalanche hold off the Utah

Chances 3.2 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Avalanche took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.24
COL
3.21
50% of the chances50%

The board read UTA 1, COL 2. The chances read UTA 3.2, COL 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
−1.2
goals above expected
COL3.21 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA3.24 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth left 2.2 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 10:57COLR. Colton0–1
  2. P2 17:48UTAD. GuentherPP1–1
  3. P3 02:52COLN. MacKinnonPP1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
48 shots
1
Final
90 shots
COL
42 shots
2
UTA attackCOL attack
UTA COL Goal
48
shots · 1 in
42
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTACOL
0 / 4
0.97 xG
High danger
0 / 3
1.00 xG
1 / 11
1.28 xG
Medium
2 / 15
1.61 xG
0 / 47
0.99 xG
Low
0 / 47
0.60 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Wedgewood
+2.2
COL · 32/33
B+
K. Vejmelka
+1.2
UTA · 25/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche hold off the Utah

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 11–14
  1. 10:57COLR. Colton(J. Drury, V. Olofsson)0–1
2ndshots 11–4
  1. 17:48UTAD. Guentherpower play(C. Keller, N. Schmaltz)1–1
3rdshots 11–9
  1. 02:52COLN. MacKinnonpower play(C. Makar, M. Necas)1–2

score reads UTA–COL

Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.21
COL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.015
COL puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
51.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.24Expected goals3.21
UTA 50% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal27
4High-danger chances3
62All attempts (Corsi)65
Adjusted for score: UTA 52% · COL 49%
Faceoffs · COL won68%off63%neu74%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 4 · 0.97 xG
COL0 / 3 · 1.00 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA1 / 11 · 1.28 xG
COL2 / 15 · 1.61 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA0 / 47 · 0.99 xG
COL0 / 47 · 0.60 xG

COL went 0-for-3 from high danger on 1.00 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
1 G · 3.24 xG · -2.2
COL
2 G · 3.21 xG · -1.2
01234

UTA finished -2.2 against expected, COL -1.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST0/26
SLAP1/9
SNAP0/7
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/4
POKE0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/14
COL
WRIST1/17
SLAP0/8
SNAP1/5
TIP IN0/8
BACKHAND0/3
POKE0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/23
UTA
COL
Off the rush
0 G on 30
2.12 xG
2 G on 19
1.69 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.60 xG
0 G on 2
0.24 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 0-for-26, COL 1-for-17. COL scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
New to these numbers?

Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

xG
Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
HD
High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
Corsi
Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
Adj.
Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
GSAx
Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
PDO
Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
Shot by shot

In the net

Graded on goals saved above expected
K. Vejmelka
UTA · 25/27 · .926
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/31.0+1.0
Medium2/151.6-0.4
Low0/470.6+0.6

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

S. Wedgewood
COL · 32/33 · .970
+2.2
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium1/111.3+0.3
Low0/471.0+1.0

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
48 shots
1
Final
90 shots
COL
42 shots
2
UTA attackCOL attack
UTA COL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, COL right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
C. Makar
#8 · D · COL
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:03 on ice
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 22:17 on ice
M. Necas
#88 · C · COL
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:20 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 9
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 12:28 AMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The model projects a 3.0–3.5 goal spread favoring Colorado, with the Avalanche at 57% win probability.

Colorado owns the underlying play. Their 5v5 xG sits at 56.6% versus Utah's 51.5%, and they're controlling play at 56.4% Corsi against 52.9%. This is territorial dominance: the Avalanche will spend the majority of the game in Utah's end.

But Colorado's luck is running hot. Their PDO of 1.021—a measure combining conversion and save rates—is running above sustainability. They're converting chances and suppressing goals at rates that historically regress. Utah's 1.003 sits closer to neutral.

The matchup hinges on Artturi Lehkonen. He's driving the Avalanche offense at 1.11 xG/60 with 18 goals and 22 assists, backed by 6 high-danger goals that suggest real finishing skill beyond variance. Utah's primary shutdown task is neutralizing him; force him into low-danger looks, and they buy time for their own attack.

Dylan Guenther is Utah's answer. At 1.02 xG/60 with 28 goals and 15 assists, he's shooting at 16.8%—elite efficiency that vindicates the xG model's assessment. If Utah stays competitive, it runs through him. Colorado will game-plan accordingly.

Depth separates the teams further. Ross Colton (1.10 xG/60, 7 goals and 15 assists) gives Colorado secondary punch, while Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2 goals and 2 assists) represents Utah's marginal scoring depth. Neither overwhelms below the top line, which amplifies Colorado's ability to tilt play; if Utah can't manufacture secondary scoring, they'll struggle to hang around.

Utah's Maveric Lamoureux profiles as a defensive weak link. Colorado's Nazem Kadri carries similar exposure. Utah will hunt those gaps; Colorado already has.

This is a game where the better team's advantage is real but not immense. The underlying 57% edges higher only if Colorado's PDO regression stays delayed—a bet the model is implicitly taking.

Three Stars

Dylan Guenther — 1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting

Artturi Lehkonen — 1.11 xG/60, 18G 22A, 6 HD goals, 14.9% shooting

Ross Colton — 1.10 xG/60, 7G 15A, 1 HD goal, 4.9% shooting

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 57%
57%
COL
Model favorite
43%
57%
UTA50COL

COL by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 3.0–3.5 COL; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG
UTA← edge
edge →COL
51.5%56.6%
52.9%56.4%
3.183.59
3.002.76
3.273.63
2.932.40
1.0031.021

COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
UTA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
COL
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.021
COL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALCOL

Shutdown Assignment: Avalanche

Key matchup: Neutralize Dylan Guenther (28G, 1.02 xG/60, 3 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Dylan Guenther (28G, 1.02 xG/60, 3 HD goals)

TACTICALUTA

Shutdown Assignment: Mammoth

Key matchup: Neutralize Artturi Lehkonen (18G, 1.11 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Artturi Lehkonen (18G, 1.11 xG/60, 6 HD goals)

STRENGTHCOL

Artturi Lehkonen drives the Avalanche offense

Artturi Lehkonen: 18G 22A, 1.11 xG/60, 6 high-danger goals.

WARNINGUTA

Exploitable minutes: Maveric Lamoureux

Maveric Lamoureux is on ice for 2.98 xGA/60 and 4 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Maveric Lamoureux's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 56.6% 5v5 xG vs 51.5%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 56.4% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 56.6% 5v5 xG vs 51.5%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 56.4% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
UTA
Dylan Guenther28G 15A
1.02 xG/60 · 3 HD · 16.8% sh
Daniil But2G 2A
1.01 xG/60 · 1 HD · 5.6% sh
COL
Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
Ross Colton7G 15A
1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page