Breakdown · UTA at CHI

Blackhawks hold off the Utah

FinalMon, Oct 13

UTAUtah Hockey Club1 CHIChicago Blackhawks3

The verdict · earned

The Blackhawks earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

UTA 1 · CHI 3

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:38 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

Chicago held only 39 percent of shot attempts yet won 3-1, an outcome that should have been much closer. The expected-goals split (2.99–2.72 Chicago) wouldn't have predicted a blowout; high-danger chances (3–2 Chicago) suggested a tighter result.

S. Knight resolved the disconnect. He saved 1.72 goals above expected, stopping 21 of 22 shots for a 0.955 save percentage. Utah underperformed their 2.72 xG by nearly the same margin, converting just one goal on looks that merited more.

Chicago scored three goals on 16 rush attempts and held a decisive shot quality edge: 0.103 xG per attempt versus Utah's 0.048. Both teams created three rebound opportunities. Neither capitalized.

Ilya Mikheyev's wrist shot from the high slot (third period, 19:54) supplied the turning point. V. Vanecek made 11 of 13 saves and overperformed his expected total by 0.99, a minor bright spot in an otherwise costly night.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 13

UTA

CHI

Blackhawks hold off the Utah

Chances 2.7 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Blackhawks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

2.72

CHI

2.99

48% of the chances52%

The board read UTA 1, CHI 3. The chances read UTA 2.7, CHI 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

CHI

+0.0

goals above expected

CHI2.99 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

UTA2.72 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Mammoth left 1.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P2 09:21CHII. Mikheyev0–1
P3 01:02UTAJ. Peterka1–1
P3 08:55CHIA. BurakovskyPP1–2
P3 19:54CHII. MikheyevEN1–3

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

UTA

42 shots

Final

68 shots

CHI

26 shots

UTA CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTACHI

0 / 2

0.39 xG

High danger

3 / 3

1.51 xG

0 / 14

1.60 xG

Medium

0 / 10

1.15 xG

1 / 41

0.72 xG

Low

0 / 16

0.34 xG

The Blackhawks buried 3 of 3 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

S. Knight

+1.7

CHI · 21/22

B+

V. Vanecek

+1.0

UTA · 11/13

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blackhawks 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 5–6no goals

2ndshots 13–3

09:21CHII. Mikheyev(J. Dickinson, R. Donato)0–1

3rdshots 4–5

01:02UTAJ. Peterka(D. Guenther, J. Marino)1–1
08:55CHIA. Burakovskypower play(N. Foligno, C. Dach)1–2
19:54CHII. Mikheyevempty net(T. Teravainen)1–3

score reads UTA–CHI

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.99

CHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.086

CHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

33.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.72Expected goals2.99

CHI 52% of the chance quality

22Shots on goal14

2High-danger chances3

57All attempts (Corsi)29

Adjusted for score: UTA 68% · CHI 32%

Faceoffs · CHI won18%off58%neu59%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA0 / 2 · 0.39 xG

CHI3 / 3 · 1.51 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA0 / 14 · 1.60 xG

CHI0 / 10 · 1.15 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA1 / 41 · 0.72 xG

CHI0 / 16 · 0.34 xG

UTA went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.60 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

1 G · 2.72 xG · -1.7

CHI

3 G · 2.99 xG · +0.0

01234

UTA finished -1.7 against expected, CHI +0.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

WRIST1/27

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/4

SNAP0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

BACKHAND0/2

OTHER0/15

CHI

WRIST3/18

SLAP0/2

TIP IN0/3

SNAP0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

BACKHAND0/0

OTHER0/3

UTA

CHI

Off the rush

1 G on 22

1.86 xG

3 G on 16

2.37 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 3

0.41 xG

0 G on 3

0.37 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-27, CHI 3-for-18. CHI 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

V. Vanecek

UTA · 11/13 · .846

+1.0

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/31.5-1.5

Medium0/101.1+1.1

Low0/160.3+0.3

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. Knight

CHI · 21/22 · .955

+1.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.4+0.4

Medium0/141.6+1.6

Low1/410.7-0.3

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

68 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

42 shots

Final

68 shots

CHI

26 shots

UTA CHI GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, CHI 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

I. Mikheyev

#95 · R · —

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 18:41 on ice · +2

D. Guenther

#11 · R · —

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:15 on ice

J. Marino

#6 · D · —

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:55 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Oct 13

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelSep 22, 2:23 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

Utah projects to win at 55%, with the model forecasting a 3.3–3.0 Mammoth edge. The underlying case is straightforward: Utah controls the play.

The Mammoth carry a 51.5% expected-goals share at 5v5, against Chicago's 43.5%. That gap reflects territorial dominance—Utah also commands 52.9% of shot attempts versus the Blackhawks' 46.0%. Both teams sit near neutral on luck (Utah 1.003 PDO, Chicago 0.996), so the model is reading genuine process, not variance.

Dylan Guenther is Utah's offense. He's generated 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes, converted 28 into goals, and registered three high-danger tallies—a mix of volume and efficiency that explains why Chicago's shutdown focus lands on him. His 16.8% shooting rate sits where elite finishers land. Daniil But, at 1.01 xG/60, offers Utah a second credible wing capable of generating looks, though his 5.6% shooting has left real goals on the table.

Chicago's edge lies in Bertuzzi, who combines volume (0.85 xG/60) with conversion (20 goals, 18.0% shooting) and danger—seven high-danger goals underline that he doesn't just get chances; he gets ones that matter. Connor Bedard, despite a lower xG/60 (0.82), has 17 goals and 27 assists, a playmaking dimension that keeps him dangerous even in a quieter matchup. Utah's defensive weak link is Maveric Lamoureux; Chicago's is Anton Frondell. Both teams will test those edges if the game tightens.

The model's 55% lean on Utah isn't a blowout projection. Chicago can win if Bertuzzi finds space and Bedard's playmaking breaks Utah's structured team defense. But the Mammoth enter holding the advantage in puck possession, shot volume, and goal probability. The path to upset requires Chicago to outshoot the script—or for Utah's underlying play to finally fail to translate into wins, a possibility the slight 1.003 PDO leaves room for, though nothing in the numbers suggests it.

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

UTA 55%

55%

UTA

Model favorite

55%

45%

UTA50CHI

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 3.3–3.0 CHI; 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 →CHI

51.5%43.5%

52.9%46.0%

3.182.62

3.003.40

3.272.56

2.933.29

1.0030.996

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.996) 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

CHI

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALCHI

Shutdown Assignment: Blackhawks

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

TACTICALUTA

Shutdown Assignment: Mammoth

Key matchup: Neutralize Tyler Bertuzzi (20G, 0.85 xG/60, 7 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.

WARNINGCHI

Exploitable minutes: Anton Frondell

Anton Frondell is on ice for 4.31 xGA/60 and 12 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Anton Frondell's shifts with the top line.

Where the edges live

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 51.5% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 52.9% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 51.5% 5v5 xG vs 43.5%.
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

CHI

Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A

0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh

Connor Bedard17G 27A

0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page