Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
Breakdown · UTA at NSH

Mammoth steal one from the Predators against the run of play

The verdict · stolen

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.56–4.14 and won anyway.

UTA 3 · NSH 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:22 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's 3–2 overtime victory over Nashville was a robbery: the Predators dominated the expected-goal battle 4.14–2.56, controlling 62% of shot quality at 5v5. Utah won because K. Vejmelka played the game of his life, not because the Mammoth outplayed Nashville.

The Predators dictated play with 50% of shot attempts (23–23) and 7 high-danger chances to Utah's 4. They should have won. Instead, they left 2.14 goals on the table—a haunting margin for a team that created quality looks all night but couldn't finish. This wasn't randomness; this was a systematic inability to convert.

Utah's goaltender made the difference. Vejmelka stopped 21 of 23 shots for a 0.913 save percentage, posting a +2.14 performance against expected, the kind of heroic outing that decides close games. J. Saros, by contrast, allowed 20 of 23 for a 0.870 mark—respectable but insufficient.

Utah earned their win through clinical execution in the moments that mattered. They converted 2 of 4 high-danger chances (50%) and scored 3 goals on 23 rush opportunities, prioritizing speed over volume. D. Guenther's backhander at 02:56 of overtime epitomized Utah's sharpshooting; he finished with 1 goal and 1 assist in 23:54. L. Cooley added 1 goal in 22:40, while F. Forsberg led Nashville's futile effort with 1 goal in 20:51.

Nashville crashed the net relentlessly, generating 6 rebound chances. They converted just one. That's the game: a Predators team that played better, worked harder, and still lost because Utah's goaltender was immovable and the Mammoth capitalized when it mattered.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 11
UTA
3
NSH
2

Mammoth steal one from the Predators against the run of play

Chances 2.6 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Predators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
2.56
NSH
4.14
38% of the chances62%

The board read UTA 3, NSH 2. The chances read UTA 2.6, NSH 4.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+0.4
goals above expected
UTA2.56 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NSH4.14 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Predators left 2.1 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 02:21UTAL. Cooley1–0
  2. P1 07:23NSHF. Forsberg1–1
  3. P2 13:13NSHE. Haula1–2
  4. P3 11:37UTAJ. McBain2–2
  5. OT 02:56UTAD. Guenther3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
30 shots
3
Final
69 shots
NSH
39 shots
2
UTA attackNSH attack
UTA NSH Goal
30
shots · 3 in
39
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTANSH
2 / 4
1.00 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.99 xG
1 / 11
1.10 xG
Medium
0 / 16
1.69 xG
0 / 28
0.46 xG
Low
1 / 37
0.46 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
K. Vejmelka
+2.1
UTA · 21/23
D
J. Saros
−0.4
NSH · 20/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth steal one from the Predators against the run of play

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 11–6
  1. 02:21UTAL. Cooley(D. Guenther, J. Peterka)1–0
  2. 07:23NSHF. Forsberg(B. Martin)1–1
2ndshots 3–9
  1. 13:13NSHE. Haula(L. Evangelista, J. Marchessault)1–2
3rdshots 8–8
  1. 11:37UTAJ. McBain(N. Schmaltz, S. Durzi)2–2
OTshots 1–0
  1. 02:56UTAD. Guenther3–2

score reads UTA–NSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.56
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.036
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
41.7%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.56Expected goals4.14
NSH 62% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal23
4High-danger chances7
43All attempts (Corsi)60
Adjusted for score: UTA 43% · NSH 57%
Faceoffs · NSH won76%off47%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA2 / 4 · 1.00 xG
NSH1 / 7 · 1.99 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA1 / 11 · 1.10 xG
NSH0 / 16 · 1.69 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA0 / 28 · 0.46 xG
NSH1 / 37 · 0.46 xG

NSH went 0-for-16 from medium danger on 1.69 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
3 G · 2.56 xG · +0.4
NSH
2 G · 4.14 xG · -2.1
012345

UTA finished +0.4 against expected, NSH -2.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST2/17
SNAP0/2
BACKHAND1/3
TIP IN0/2
SLAP0/5
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/13
NSH
WRIST0/21
SNAP1/5
BACKHAND0/4
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/1
DEFLECTED1/3
BAT0/1
OTHER0/21
UTA
NSH
Off the rush
3 G on 23
2.35 xG
1 G on 29
2.85 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 0
0.00 xG
1 G on 6
1.06 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-17, NSH 0-for-21. UTA scored 3 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 · 21/23 · .913
+2.1
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/72.0+1.0
Medium0/161.7+1.7
Low1/370.5-0.5

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

J. Saros
NSH · 20/23 · .870
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/41.0-1.0
Medium1/111.1+0.1
Low0/280.5+0.5

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

69 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
30 shots
3
Final
69 shots
NSH
39 shots
2
UTA attackNSH attack
UTA NSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, NSH 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
D. Guenther
#11 · R · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 23:54 on ice · +2
L. Cooley
#92 · C · UTA
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 22:40 on ice · +1
F. Forsberg
#9 · L · NSH
1 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 20:51 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 11
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Model draft
◆ By the ModelSep 22, 1:20 AMRaw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The model projects a UTA 3.2 - 3.2 NSH game with the Mammoth at 50% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Keys to the game

  • Shutdown Assignment: Predators. Key matchup: Neutralize Dylan Guenther (28G, 1.02 xG/60, 3 HD goals)
  • Shutdown Assignment: Mammoth. Key matchup: Neutralize Zachary L'Heureux (4G, 0.85 xG/60, 1 HD goals)
  • Dylan Guenther drives the Mammoth offense. Dylan Guenther: 28G 15A, 1.02 xG/60, 3 high-danger goals.

Season 5v5 Numbers

MetricUTANSH
xG%51.5%48.7%
Corsi%52.9%49.5%
PDO1.0030.992

Rates from 2025-26 — the 2026-27 sample isn't live yet.

Where the Edges Live

  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 52.9% — expect territorial tilt.

Players to Watch

UTA

  • Dylan Guenther — 1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting
  • Daniil But — 1.01 xG/60, 2G 2A, 1 HD goals, 5.6% shooting

NSH

  • Zachary L'Heureux — 0.85 xG/60, 4G 0A, 1 HD goals, 16.0% shooting
  • Filip Forsberg — 0.80 xG/60, 23G 17A, 4 HD goals, 13.6% shooting

Key Matchups

UTA

  • Key matchup: Neutralize Dylan Guenther (28G, 1.02 xG/60, 3 HD goals)
  • Watch Daniil But (2G, 5.6% shooting)

NSH

  • Key matchup: Neutralize Zachary L'Heureux (4G, 0.85 xG/60, 1 HD goals)
  • Watch Filip Forsberg (23G, 13.6% shooting)

Tactical Notes

  • UTA: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
  • UTA defensive weak link: Maveric Lamoureux
  • NSH: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
  • NSH defensive weak link: Jonathan Marchessault

Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 50%
50%
UTA
Model favorite
50%
50%
UTA50NSH

UTA by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 3.2–3.2 NSH; 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 →NSH
51.5%48.7%
52.9%49.5%
3.183.09
3.003.24
3.272.95
2.933.26
1.0030.992

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.992) says UTA 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
NSH
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.992
NSH PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALNSH

Shutdown Assignment: Predators

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 Zachary L'Heureux (4G, 0.85 xG/60, 1 HD goals)

Key matchup: Neutralize Zachary L'Heureux (4G, 0.85 xG/60, 1 HD 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.

WARNINGNSH

Exploitable minutes: Jonathan Marchessault

Jonathan Marchessault is on ice for 3.07 xGA/60 and 40 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Jonathan Marchessault's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 52.9% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 52.9% — expect territorial tilt.
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
NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh
Keep going

Where to next