Backcheck
Recap · UTA at MIN

Mammoth pull away from the Wild

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

By the ModelJul 11, 1:06 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
UTA
Utah Mammoth
6
Home
MIN
Minnesota Wild
2
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

5.43Expected goals3.90
58% share for the better side
41Shot attempts (SOG)35
10High-danger chances7
62Corsi (all attempts)75
Score-adjusted: 39% / 61%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. VejmelkaUTA
+1.9
F. GustavssonMIN
+0.4

UTA finished +0.6 against expected, MIN -1.9 — K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 1.9 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Marino
#6 · D · UTA
1 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:27 TOI · +2
L. Cooley
#92 · C · UTA
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 13:58 TOI · +2
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:20 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • 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.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · UTA at MIN · 6:00 PM ET

Mammoth at Wild: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 1:04 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
MIN
Model favorite
49%
51%
UTA50MIN

MIN by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.52.6 MIN; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

UTA← edge
edge →MIN
52.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
53.0%Corsi%48.0%
2.64xGF / 602.55
2.39xGA / 602.40
2.26Goals for / gm2.04
1.99Goals against / gm1.93
1.003PDO — luck, not skill1.007

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 1.007) says MIN has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters