Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · SJS at UTA

Utah run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalFri, Oct 17

SJSSan Jose Sharks3 UTAUtah Hockey Club6

The verdict · earned

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

SJS 3 · UTA 6

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:57 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 didn't just win—they dominated at a scale that makes a 6–3 scoreline look restrained. The Jazz controlled 68 percent of expected goals (4.06–1.89 xG), a margin that reveals the gap between result and dominance.

Shot volume echoed the xG gap: Utah fired 34 attempts to San Jose's 21 (62 percent share). High-danger chances went 5–2. On nearly every metric, Utah's control was overwhelming.

The difference surfaced in shot quality. Utah generated 0.067 xG per shot versus San Jose's 0.050—Utah hunted better locations. On the rush, Utah parlayed 32 chances into six goals; San Jose managed two from 18. In high-danger areas, Utah buried 2 of 5 (40 percent conversion).

Both teams got lucky. Utah overperformed their xG by 1.94 goals—elite finish or fortunate bounces. San Jose posted a 1.11 overperformance, a modest bright spot in a lopsided loss. Y. Askarov (SJS) was worse, allowing 1.94 more goals than expected (0.824 SV%). K. Vejmelka (UTA) allowed 1.11 more than expected (0.857 SV%), but Utah's offensive outperformance masked the weakness.

Three Stars:

#8 N. Schmaltz — 3G, 1A in 18:40
#9 C. Keller — 1G, 3A in 17:42
#71 M. Celebrini — 1G, 1A in 17:24

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Oct 17

SJS

UTA

Utah run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 1.9 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

SJS

1.89

UTA

4.06

32% of the chances68%

The board read SJS 3, UTA 6. The chances read SJS 1.9, UTA 4.1.

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

Luck check

UTA

+1.9

goals above expected

UTA4.06 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

SJS1.89 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Mammoth scored 1.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 09:39UTAN. SchmaltzPP0–1
P1 13:31UTAN. Schmaltz0–2
P2 05:23SJST. ToffoliPP1–2
P2 07:13SJSJ. Skinner2–2
P2 16:09UTAL. O'Brien2–3
P3 00:54UTAN. Schmaltz2–4
P3 03:25UTAM. Carcone2–5

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

SJS

28 shots

Final

77 shots

UTA

49 shots

SJS UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

SJSUTA

1 / 2

0.57 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.28 xG

1 / 8

0.84 xG

Medium

4 / 19

2.11 xG

1 / 28

0.48 xG

Low

0 / 37

0.67 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

D-

K. Vejmelka

−1.1

UTA · 18/21

Y. Askarov

−1.9

SJS · 28/34

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Utah run the Sharks off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 7–12

09:39UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(L. Cooley, C. Keller)0–1
13:31UTAN. Schmaltz(C. Keller)0–2

2ndshots 9–11

05:23SJST. Toffolipower play(D. Orlov, W. Smith)1–2
07:13SJSJ. Skinner(M. Celebrini, V. Desharnais)2–2
16:09UTAL. O'Brien(B. Tanev, I. Cole)2–3

3rdshots 5–11

00:54UTAN. Schmaltz(C. Keller)2–4
03:25UTAM. Carcone(L. Crouse)2–5
11:32UTAC. Keller(N. Schmaltz, B. Hayton)2–6
16:51SJSM. Celebrinipower play(J. Skinner, A. Wennberg)3–6

score reads SJS–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.06

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.9

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.019

UTA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

61.6%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

1.89Expected goals4.06

UTA 68% of the chance quality

21Shots on goal34

2High-danger chances5

38All attempts (Corsi)61

Adjusted for score: SJS 43% · UTA 57%

Faceoffs · UTA won58%off47%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

SJS1 / 2 · 0.57 xG

UTA2 / 5 · 1.28 xG

Medium dangermid-range

SJS1 / 8 · 0.84 xG

UTA4 / 19 · 2.11 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

SJS1 / 28 · 0.48 xG

UTA0 / 37 · 0.67 xG

UTA went 4-for-19 from medium danger on 2.11 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

SJS

3 G · 1.89 xG · +1.1

UTA

6 G · 4.06 xG · +1.9

01234567

SJS finished +1.1 against expected, UTA +1.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

SJS

SNAP2/18

BACKHAND1/2

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/3

WRIST0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/10

UTA

SNAP5/31

BACKHAND1/6

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/4

WRIST0/3

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/12

SJS

UTA

Off the rush

2 G on 18

1.43 xG

6 G on 32

2.99 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.28 xG

0 G on 4

0.50 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SJS went 2-for-18, UTA 5-for-31. UTA scored 6 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

Y. Askarov

SJS · 28/34 · .824

-1.9

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.3-0.7

Medium4/192.1-1.9

Low0/370.7+0.7

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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 18/21 · .857

-1.1

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/20.6-0.4

Medium1/80.8-0.2

Low1/280.5-0.5

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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

SJS

28 shots

Final

77 shots

UTA

49 shots

SJS UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

N. Schmaltz

#8 · C · —

3 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 18:40 on ice · +3

C. Keller

#9 · R · —

1 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 17:42 on ice · +3

M. Celebrini

#71 · C · —

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:24 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Oct 17

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJun 16, 2:55 PMEdited 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 2.4-2.7 Utah victory and gives the visitors a 56% win probability. This edge rests on Utah's control of the underlying play—a decisive advantage in a matchup where possession generates wins.

Utah dominates at 5v5. The Jazz hold a 52.0% expected goals share versus San Jose's 48.0%, a three-point gap that compounds across 60 minutes. On shot volume, Utah's territorial superiority widens: 53.0% Corsi against 47.0%. The Sharks will spend this game defending their zone.

San Jose's scoring depth makes them dangerous despite the deficit in play. Pavol Regenda (1.10 xG/60) is the primary concern—he has 5 goals and 2 high-danger goals, proof of a clean finishing touch at 16.1% shooting. Igor Chernyshov (0.91 xG/60) provides secondary scoring with 6 goals and 8 assists, including 1 high-danger goal, though his 15.0% shooting rate is the softer part of his profile. Both represent significant scoring threats.

Utah's forward group is built on volume. Dylan Guenther leads the way at 1.02 xG/60 with 28 goals and 3 high-danger goals, evidence of finishing skill in the 16.8% range. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60) operates on the margins—2 goals, 2 assists, and 1 high-danger goal suggest he's underperforming his underlying metrics. At 5.6% shooting, he looks due.

The luck component favors Utah slightly. San Jose's PDO of 0.998 sits below neutral; Utah's 1.003 sits above. Neither gap is substantial, but it's one more small edge for the Jazz in a game where their core advantage—control—should manifest in the result.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 56%

56%

UTA

Model favorite

44%

56%

SJS50UTA

UTA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score SJS 2.4–2.7 UTA; 18% 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

SJS← edge

edge →UTA

48.0%52.0%

47.0%53.0%

2.332.64

2.562.39

1.992.26

2.321.99

0.9981.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.003) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · No games yet

SJS

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

UTA

0-0-0

+0 GD · 0d rest

0.998

SJS PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

UTA owns the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
UTA drives Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

UTA owns the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
UTA drives Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

SJS

Pavol Regenda5G 1A

1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh

Igor Chernyshov6G 8A

0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page