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

Mammoth pull away from the Blues

The verdict · stolen

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.00–3.30 and won anyway.

UTA 7 · STL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:51 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

The Mammoth dominated the scoreboard but surrendered the underlying game to St. Louis. Utah won 7–4 despite the Blues holding an edge in expected goals (3.30–3.00, 52–48%).

The Mammoth's power play was the equalizer. Utah scored twice on eight power-play shots (0.73 xG), capitalizing on numerical advantage when the Blues could not. On rush chances, the gap was starker: Utah converted 5 of 21 chances while St. Louis scored twice on 20 attempts.

Utah also finished at an elite clip in high-danger situations—50% on their high-danger chances (2 of 4)—while scoring two goals from low-danger spots the opposing goalie should routinely deny. The turning point came from Clayton Keller's wrist shot from the top of the circles in the third period (18:20). This elite finishing accounts for most of the 4.00-goal overperformance of Utah's actual output against their 3.00 expected goals.

Blues goalie J. Hofer underperformed badly, surrendering 2.2 more goals than expected against his low workload (3 saves on 6 shots, 0.500 SV%). J. Binnington stabilized later (15 saves on 18 shots, 0.833 SV%). On the other end, K. Vejmelka posted 16 saves on 20 shots for Utah but fell slightly short of expectation (0.800 SV%, -0.70 vs expected).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 23
UTA
7
STL
4

Mammoth pull away from the Blues

Chances 3.0 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Mammoth took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.00
STL
3.30
48% of the chances52%

The board read UTA 7, STL 4. The chances read UTA 3.0, STL 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+4.0
goals above expected
UTA3.00 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
STL3.30 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth scored 4.0 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 03:18UTAI. Cole1–0
  2. P1 06:07UTAL. Cooley2–0
  3. P1 07:57UTAL. Cooley3–0
  4. P1 10:55UTAL. CooleyPP4–0
  5. P2 05:58STLP. Suter4–1
  6. P2 07:13STLP. BuchnevichPP4–2
  7. P2 19:24UTAC. Keller5–2
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
35 shots
7
Final
66 shots
STL
31 shots
4
UTA attackSTL attack
UTA STL Goal
35
shots · 7 in
31
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTASTL
2 / 4
1.36 xG
High danger
1 / 7
1.64 xG
3 / 10
1.00 xG
Medium
3 / 11
1.28 xG
2 / 26
0.64 xG
Low
0 / 22
0.38 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
C
J. Hofer
+0.0
STL · 3/6
C
J. Binnington
+0.0
STL · 15/18
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth pull away from the Blues

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 10–3
  1. 03:18UTAI. Cole(J. Peterka, L. Cooley)1–0
  2. 06:07UTAL. Cooley(D. Guenther, J. Peterka)2–0
  3. 07:57UTAL. Cooley(D. Guenther, O. Maatta)3–0
  4. 10:55UTAL. Cooleypower play(D. Guenther, M. Sergachev)4–0
2ndshots 8–7
  1. 05:58STLP. Suter(C. Parayko, M. Joseph)4–1
  2. 07:13STLP. Buchnevichpower play(R. Thomas, J. Kyrou)4–2
  3. 19:24UTAC. Keller(N. Schmaltz, J. Peterka)5–2
3rdshots 7–10
  1. 02:19STLN. Walker(O. Sundqvist, D. Holloway)5–3
  2. 05:43STLP. Broberg(O. Sundqvist, C. Parayko)5–4
  3. 09:51UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(M. Sergachev, C. Keller)6–4
  4. 18:20UTAC. Kellerempty net(N. Schmaltz, B. Hayton)7–4

score reads UTA–STL

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.00
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+4.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.075
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
50.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.00Expected goals3.30
STL 52% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal20
4High-danger chances7
40All attempts (Corsi)40
Adjusted for score: UTA 43% · STL 57%
Faceoffs · STL won65%off60%neu38%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA2 / 4 · 1.36 xG
STL1 / 7 · 1.64 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA3 / 10 · 1.00 xG
STL3 / 11 · 1.28 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA2 / 26 · 0.64 xG
STL0 / 22 · 0.38 xG

UTA went 3-for-10 from medium danger on 1.00 expected goals — 2.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
7 G · 3.00 xG · +4.0
STL
4 G · 3.30 xG · +0.7
012345678

UTA finished +4.0 against expected, STL +0.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST4/16
SNAP0/4
TIP IN1/5
SLAP1/7
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/5
STL
WRIST2/14
SNAP1/7
TIP IN0/5
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND1/2
OTHER0/9
UTA
STL
Off the rush
5 G on 21
2.05 xG
2 G on 20
2.47 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2
0.23 xG
2 G on 4
0.58 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 4-for-16, STL 2-for-14. UTA scored 5 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 · 16/20 · .800
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.6+0.6
Medium3/111.3-1.7
Low0/220.4+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

J. Hofer
STL · 3/6 · .500
+0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/41.4-0.6
Medium3/101.0-2.0
Low2/260.6-1.4

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

J. Binnington
STL · 15/18 · .833
+0.0
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/41.4-0.6
Medium3/101.0-2.0
Low2/260.6-1.4

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

66 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
35 shots
7
Final
66 shots
STL
31 shots
4
UTA attackSTL attack
UTA STL Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, STL 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
L. Cooley
#92 · C · UTA
3 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:16 on ice · +2
N. Schmaltz
#8 · C · UTA
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:47 on ice · +2
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
2 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:14 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Oct 23
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 12:49 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 UTA at 51% win probability—a statistical coin flip. The projected score of 2.5 goals each reflects the total edge: marginal.

Utah owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Mammoth own 52.0% xG versus 49.0% for St. Louis, and they control territory at 53.0% Corsi. This territorial advantage is real. That said, a three-point gap in xG% and five points in Corsi doesn't translate to a blowout. Both teams' PDO sits near 1.000 (Utah at 1.003, St. Louis at 1.000), meaning neither has been lucky or unlucky—the actual score reflects the play.

The goaltending dimension tilts unpredictably. Both J. Binnington and K. Vejmelka work a back-to-back, which raises the question of fresh legs or starter fatigue. Either club could get a backup or a determined veteran in the crease, and that variable is large enough to erase Utah's underlying advantage.

Utah's offensive engine runs through Dylan Guenther, who generates 1.02 xG per 60 and has converted at a sharp 16.8% clip en route to 28 goals and 15 assists. The volume is there; the finishing is there. Behind him, Daniil But trails slightly in volume (1.01 xG/60) but shoots at only 5.6%—a drag waiting to turn. A lucky shooting night for But could widen the lead; a normal one keeps Utah's advantage thin.

St. Louis counters with Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15 goals, 22 assists) and Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13 goals, 24 assists). Neither approaches Guenther's output, yet Snuggerud's 11.9% shot conversion and Holloway's 10.8% are both above league average. St. Louis scores from deeper chances; Utah concentrates volume.

The defensive weak point for Utah is Maveric Lamoureux, while Jimmy Snuggerud carries that role for St. Louis—a slight symmetry that neither team can exploit meaningfully in a single contest.

Both teams' 0% high-danger goal and rebound-goal rates are statistical noise in sample size, not predictive. The game lives in the territory battle, the Guenther matchup, and whether either goalie steals a start on the second of a back-to-back.

Utah enters as a light favorite, but the model's 51% is where it belongs: too close to read.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 51%
51%
UTA
Model favorite
51%
49%
UTA50STL

UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.5–2.5 STL; 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
UTA← edge
edge →STL
52.0%49.0%
53.0%48.0%
2.642.34
2.392.40
2.262.00
1.992.12
1.0031.000

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.000) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
UTA
7-3-0
+7 GD · 1d rest
STL
5-4-1
+2 GD · 1d rest
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.000
STL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • J. Binnington is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
UTA
Expected in goal
K. Vejmelka
back-to-back.909 last start
Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

STL
Expected in goal
J. Binnington
back-to-back.929 last start
Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 GSAx this season
Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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
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
STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next