Mammoth pull away from the Wild
The Mammoth earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.
The underlying story
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 danger ladder
MIN went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.57 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.
Finishing vs expected
UTA finished +0.6 against expected, MIN -1.9 — K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 1.9 goals above expected.
Shot diet
Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-30, MIN 0-for-27. UTA scored 3 of theirs off the rush.
- K. Vejmelka (UTA) stopped 1.9 goals above expected.
- Open game — 17 high-danger chances combined (MIN 7, UTA 10).
- UTA had the higher quality looks — 0.088 xG/shot vs 0.052.
- MIN couldn't convert — 0/7 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
- MIN was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 31 rush chances.
- UTA was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 29 rush chances.
- MIN created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
- UTA created 7 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
- MIN underperformed xG by 1.9 — wasted quality chances.
- K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 1.9 goals above expected — stole the show.