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

Mammoth edge the Avalanche in overtime

The verdict · earned

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

COL 3 · UTA 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:38 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

Equal chances, unequal results. The teams sent the same number of shots on goal—33 each—yet the Mammoth won 4-3 in overtime. The difference came down entirely to execution. The underlying numbers backed it up: Utah generated far more dangerous opportunities, creating 0.064 expected goals per shot versus Colorado's 0.040.

Utah was clinical where it mattered most. They scored 2 of 5 high-danger chances (40%) and 2 goals off the rush on 28 attempts. Colorado scored twice from low-danger locations—the kind of play that goaltenders should not allow—and added one more off the rush on 22 attempts. Both teams crashed the net with five rebound opportunities each, but only Utah converted: 2 from 5. Colorado got nothing.

Utah's expected-goals advantage was substantial (3.38 to 2.59, a 57-43 split). Goaltending reinforced the gap: S. Wedgewood stopped 29 of 33 for Colorado (0.879 SV%, 0.62 worse than expected), while K. Vejmelka saved 30 of 33 for Utah (0.909 SV%).

Dylan Guenther ended it 33 seconds into overtime with a backhander from the slot.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Oct 21
COL
3
UTA
4

Mammoth edge the Avalanche in overtime

Chances 2.6 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
COL
2.59
UTA
3.38
43% of the chances57%

The board read COL 3, UTA 4. The chances read COL 2.6, UTA 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+0.6
goals above expected
UTA3.38 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
COL2.59 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:29COLC. Makar1–0
  2. P2 09:17UTAN. SchmaltzPP1–1
  3. P2 12:30UTAL. Crouse1–2
  4. P3 01:10COLJ. Drury2–2
  5. P3 05:20UTAM. Sergachev2–3
  6. P3 17:44COLM. Necas3–3
  7. OT 00:33UTAD. Guenther3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
COL
45 shots
3
Final
89 shots
UTA
44 shots
4
COL attackUTA attack
COL UTA Goal
45
shots · 3 in
44
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
COLUTA
1 / 3
0.61 xG
High danger
2 / 5
1.19 xG
0 / 10
1.16 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.58 xG
2 / 52
0.82 xG
Low
1 / 34
0.61 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
−0.4
UTA · 30/33
D
S. Wedgewood
−0.6
COL · 29/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth edge the Avalanche in overtime

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 13–10
  1. 05:29COLC. Makar(P. Kelly, Z. Bardakov)1–0
2ndshots 7–15
  1. 09:17UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)1–1
  2. 12:30UTAL. Crouse(K. Stenlund, M. Carcone)1–2
3rdshots 13–7
  1. 01:10COLJ. Drury(R. Colton)2–2
  2. 05:20UTAM. Sergachev2–3
  3. 17:44COLM. Necas3–3
OTshots 0–1
  1. 00:33UTAD. Guenther(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)3–4

score reads COL–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.38
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.029
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.9%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.59Expected goals3.38
UTA 57% of the chance quality
33Shots on goal33
3High-danger chances5
65All attempts (Corsi)53
Adjusted for score: COL 55% · UTA 45%
Faceoffs · UTA won50%off56%neu59%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
COL1 / 3 · 0.61 xG
UTA2 / 5 · 1.19 xG
Medium dangermid-range
COL0 / 10 · 1.16 xG
UTA1 / 14 · 1.58 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
COL2 / 52 · 0.82 xG
UTA1 / 34 · 0.61 xG

COL went 2-for-52 from low danger on 0.82 expected goals — 1.2 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
COL
3 G · 2.59 xG · +0.4
UTA
4 G · 3.38 xG · +0.6
012345

COL finished +0.4 against expected, UTA +0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
COL
SNAP3/32
BACKHAND0/2
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/3
WRIST0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/20
UTA
SNAP2/24
BACKHAND1/8
SLAP1/3
TIP IN0/3
WRIST0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/9
COL
UTA
Off the rush
2 G on 22
1.47 xG
2 G on 28
2.05 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5
0.59 xG
2 G on 5
0.87 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: COL went 3-for-32, UTA 2-for-24. 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
S. Wedgewood
COL · 29/33 · .879
-0.6
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/51.2-0.8
Medium1/141.6+0.6
Low1/340.6-0.4

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 · 30/33 · .909
-0.4
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/30.6-0.4
Medium0/101.2+1.2
Low2/520.8-1.2

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
COL
45 shots
3
Final
89 shots
UTA
44 shots
4
COL attackUTA attack
COL UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — COL 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
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 24:56 on ice · +1
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 16:54 on ice
C. Makar
#8 · D · COL
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 25:30 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Oct 21
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:37 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

Colorado's expected win probability sits at 52% in a matchup the model projects at 2.7 - 2.6. That's about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The Avalanche own the underlying play by a thin margin, but Utah has enough to stay competitive.

The Avalanche drive the puck with real authority at 5v5. Their 57.0% expected goals share dwarfs Utah's 52.0%—that's meaningful separation in shot quality. Territorial advantage shows up in Corsi too, where Colorado's 57.0% to Utah's 53.0% suggests they'll spend most of the night in Utah's end. But Utah's 53.0% Corsi isn't weak for a team facing a top-tier opponent; it means they won't get pushed around wholesale.

Colorado has to manage their luck. Their 1.021 PDO signals they're running hot relative to their underlying quality, while Utah sits at 1.003—nearly neutral. That gap matters. If Avalanche regression hits mid-game, Utah could seize momentum.

The player matchups cut both ways. Artturi Lehkonen remains Colorado's engine at 1.11 xG/60 with 18 goals and 22 assists; he's generating high-danger chances at a 6-goal clip and converting at 14.9%, well above his workload. Ross Colton carries 1.10 xG/60 with 7 goals and 15 assists but is shooting just 4.9%—if he normalizes, Colorado gets even scarier.

Utah counters with Dylan Guenther, who leads with 28 goals and ranks at 1.02 xG/60. His 16.8% shot rate is elite, but it's also a ceiling that typically doesn't hold; Colorado's defense will make him earn it. Daniil But supports at 1.01 xG/60 with 2 goals and 2 assists—secondary volume that limits his leverage in a tight game.

Colorado's defensive weak link, Nazem Kadri, could see Utah probe for matchup advantages on the power play or in transition. Utah will lean on that. Maveric Lamoureux occupies a similar role for Utah, creating an asymmetry that matters if Colorado's depth forwards execute.

The razor-thin margin in Colorado's favor—52% win probability, a 4-percentage-point edge in xG%, a 4-point Corsi advantage—hinges on shot quality and execution. Lehkonen's elite conversion rate gives Colorado the edge. But Guenther is prolific enough to steal this if the Avalanche's luck regresses. This is a game where the better team might not win.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

COL 52%
52%
COL
Model favorite
52%
48%
COL50UTA

COL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score COL 2.7–2.6 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
COL← edge
edge →UTA
57.0%52.0%
57.0%53.0%
3.032.64
2.302.39
2.632.26
1.561.99
1.0211.003

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

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
COL
7-2-1
+14 GD · 2d rest
UTA
6-3-1
+5 GD · 2d rest
1.021
COL 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
  • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — 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 — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
  • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
COL
Expected in goal
S. Wedgewood
2 days rest.929 last start
Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

UTA
Expected in goal
V. Vanecek
2 days rest.923 last start
Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
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
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