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

Mammoth pull away from the Wild

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 6 · MIN 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:06 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

K. Vejmelka's play dictated the margin. The Mammoth won 6-2, but the underlying picture—Utah's 58% xG (5.43–3.90) and a 10-7 high-danger-chance edge—suggested a tighter result. Vejmelka stopped 1.90 goals above expected. Minnesota underperformed their xG by 1.90, going 0/7 on high-danger chances. Goaltending and finishing separated the teams, not play-driving.

Utah worked at 0.088 xG per shot against Minnesota's 0.052—Utah's looks were cleaner, but the 6-2 margin owes more to execution than that quality gap. F. Gustavsson made 35 saves on 40 shots (0.875 SV%), a workmanlike effort that couldn't survive elite goaltending on the other end.

Minnesota scored twice on 31 rush chances. Utah scored three on 29. The Wild generated four rebound opportunities and converted zero; Utah created seven and found one. The game turned on moments in Utah's crease.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 25
UTA
6
MIN
2

Mammoth pull away from the Wild

Chances 5.4 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
5.43
MIN
3.90
58% of the chances42%

The board read UTA 6, MIN 2. The chances read UTA 5.4, MIN 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+0.6
goals above expected
UTA5.43 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
MIN3.90 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Wild left 1.9 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 00:56UTAL. Cooley1–0
  2. P1 03:29UTAL. CooleyPP2–0
  3. P1 04:58UTAN. Schmaltz3–0
  4. P1 15:39MINM. Johansson3–1
  5. P2 15:43MINM. JohanssonPP3–2
  6. P3 13:37UTAJ. Peterka4–2
  7. P3 15:13UTAN. Schmaltz5–2
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
50 shots
6
Final
98 shots
MIN
48 shots
2
UTA attackMIN attack
UTA MIN Goal
50
shots · 6 in
48
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTAMIN
3 / 10
2.80 xG
High danger
0 / 7
1.57 xG
2 / 20
2.12 xG
Medium
1 / 18
1.77 xG
1 / 32
0.51 xG
Low
1 / 50
0.56 xG

The Wild went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
K. Vejmelka
+1.9
UTA · 33/35
B
F. Gustavsson
+0.4
MIN · 35/40
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth pull away from the Wild

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 15–6
  1. 00:56UTAL. Cooley(J. Marino)1–0
  2. 03:29UTAL. Cooleypower play(D. Guenther, M. Sergachev)2–0
  3. 04:58UTAN. Schmaltz(N. Schmidt, J. Marino)3–0
  4. 15:39MINM. Johansson(Z. Buium, K. Kaprizov)3–1
2ndshots 11–9
  1. 15:43MINM. Johanssonpower play(V. Hinostroza, M. Rossi)3–2
3rdshots 15–20
  1. 13:37UTAJ. Peterka(L. Cooley, M. Sergachev)4–2
  2. 15:13UTAN. Schmaltz5–2
  3. 19:54UTAJ. Marinoempty net(I. Cole)6–2

score reads UTA–MIN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.43
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.070
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
45.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.43Expected goals3.90
UTA 58% of the chance quality
41Shots on goal35
10High-danger chances7
62All attempts (Corsi)75
Adjusted for score: UTA 39% · MIN 61%
Faceoffs · MIN won50%off67%neu42%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA3 / 10 · 2.80 xG
MIN0 / 7 · 1.57 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA2 / 20 · 2.12 xG
MIN1 / 18 · 1.77 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA1 / 32 · 0.51 xG
MIN1 / 50 · 0.56 xG

MIN went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.57 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
6 G · 5.43 xG · +0.6
MIN
2 G · 3.90 xG · -1.9
01234567

UTA finished +0.6 against expected, MIN -1.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST3/30
BACKHAND0/7
SNAP1/4
TIP IN1/4
DEFLECTED0/2
SLAP0/1
BAT1/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/12
MIN
WRIST0/27
BACKHAND0/5
SNAP2/7
TIP IN0/3
DEFLECTED0/3
SLAP0/3
BAT0/0
POKE0/0
OTHER0/27
UTA
MIN
Off the rush
3 G on 29
3.10 xG
2 G on 31
2.50 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 7
1.22 xG
0 G on 4
0.73 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-30, MIN 0-for-27. 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 · 33/35 · .943
+1.9
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/71.6+1.6
Medium1/181.8+0.8
Low1/500.6-0.4

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

F. Gustavsson
MIN · 35/40 · .875
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/102.8-0.2
Medium2/202.1+0.1
Low1/320.5-0.5

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

98 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
50 shots
6
Final
98 shots
MIN
48 shots
2
UTA attackMIN attack
UTA MIN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, MIN 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
J. Marino
#6 · D · UTA
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:27 on ice · +2
L. Cooley
#92 · C · UTA
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 13:58 on ice · +2
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:20 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 25
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:04 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 UTA 2.5 - 2.6 MIN game with the Wild at 51% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Utah arrives hotter. The Mammoth are 8-2-0 over their last 10 games, while Minnesota has more uneven recent form. Structurally, both teams converge on even xG%—52.0% each at 5v5—but Utah's 53.0% Corsi against Minnesota's 48.0% suggests territorial control. Utah will dictate play.

The Wild own a rest advantage: three days off versus Utah's one. Expect higher variance from the Mammoth, particularly in the third period. K. Vejmelka presents another layer: on a back-to-back, he may split time or start exhausted. Monitor lineup decisions before puck drop.

The goaltending matchup cuts both ways. Utah's PDO of 1.003 and Minnesota's 1.007 are nearly identical—both teams are moderately lucky, neither unsustainably so.

Dylan Guenther drives Utah's offense at 1.02 xG/60 with 28 goals, 15 assists, and 3 high-danger chances; his 16.8% shooting rate is elevated but within his talent band. Daniil But follows at 1.01 xG/60 with 2 goals and 5.6% shooting, suggesting he's been snakebit—expect correction. Minnesota counters with Matt Boldy at 0.89 xG/60 with 22 goals, 18 assists, and 5 high-danger chances. Robby Fabbri (0.88 xG/60, 2 goals, 3 assists) may be unavailable (marked inactive); if out, Minnesota loses depth scoring.

The tactical matchup hinges on deployment. Utah's weakest defensive link is Maveric Lamoureux; Minnesota will target him. The Wild's own vulnerability is Matt Kiersted, a similar defensive liability at ice level. Both teams project 0% high-danger and 0% rebound-goal rates, suggesting neither zone entry game nor second-chance exploitation is a differentiator—this game runs through primary chances and territorial play.

The edge: Utah's Corsi superiority should translate to shot volume, but Minnesota's rest and goaltending stability offer ballast. Utah's recent form is the truest leading indicator here. The Wild's ability to manage fatigue over 60 minutes will decide whether Minnesota's luck and rest hold up against Utah's structural play.

It's genuinely close.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 51%
51%
MIN
Model favorite
49%
51%
UTA50MIN

MIN by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.5–2.6 MIN; 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 →MIN
52.0%52.0%
53.0%48.0%
2.642.55
2.392.40
2.262.04
1.991.93
1.0031.007

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.007) says MIN has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
UTA
8-2-0
+11 GD · 1d rest
MIN
5-4-1
-4 GD · 3d rest
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.007
MIN PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Mammoth are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
  • The Wild have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
UTA
Expected in goal
K. Vejmelka
back-to-back.800 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.

MIN
Expected in goal
F. Gustavsson
3 days rest.912 last start
Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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
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
MIN
Matt Boldy22G 18A
0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Robby Fabbri2G 3A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next