Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
← Sun, Oct 26 · the slate
Breakdown · UTA at WPG

V. Vanecek stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Jets

FinalSun, Oct 26
UTAUtah Hockey Club3WPGWinnipeg Jets2
The verdict · stolen

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.83–4.88 and won anyway.

UTA 3 · WPG 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:19 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

Utah stole this one. The Mammoth edged Winnipeg 3-2 despite losing the expected-goals battle 4.88–3.83—a 56–44 split that should have favored the Jets.

V. Vanecek was the difference. The Mammoth goaltender stopped 28 of 30 shots (0.933 SV%), outperforming expected by 2.88 goals. C. Hellebuyck was also solid (29/32, 0.906 SV%, +0.83), but Vanecek's surplus decided the contest.

The gap widened in high-danger chances. Winnipeg generated 11; Utah generated 5. That advantage should have translated to multiple goals. Instead, the Jets converted zero and the Mammoth scored twice on the rush despite generating far fewer dangerous opportunities. Utah was lethal on transitions—2 goals on 31 rush attempts. Winnipeg crashed the net harder, generating 8 rebound chances, but couldn't finish any of them.

Winnipeg's underlying play was convincing: they generated 0.080 expected goals per shot compared to Utah's 0.061, a quality-over-quantity advantage. But quality means nothing without conversion. The Jets underperformed their xG by 2.88 goals—a margin that won't repeat.

Dylan Guenther's wrist shot from the high slot at 14:24 of the third period proved pivotal, breaking a tie and giving Utah the cushion it would keep.

The three-star selections tell the story of both teams' efforts: J. Morrissey (2A, 24:09) kept Winnipeg's offense flowing; M. Sergachev (1G, 26:09) buried one for Utah; and D. DeMelo (1G, 22:39) also scored for the Mammoth. Morrissey's assists understate his value—his line controlled the game but couldn't finish.

On another night, Winnipeg's underlying edge converts to at least one point. Not this one.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 26
UTA
3
WPG
2

V. Vanecek stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Jets

Chances 3.8 – 4.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Jets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.83
WPG
4.88
44% of the chances56%

The board read UTA 3, WPG 2. The chances read UTA 3.8, WPG 4.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
−0.8
goals above expected
UTA3.83 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG4.88 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Jets left 2.9 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. P2 00:45WPGD. DeMelo0–1
  2. P2 10:03UTAM. SergachevPP1–1
  3. P2 11:07UTAM. Carcone2–1
  4. P2 15:09WPGM. ScheifelePP2–2
  5. P3 14:24UTAD. Guenther3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
50 shots
3
Final
96 shots
WPG
46 shots
2
UTA attackWPG attack
UTA WPG Goal
50
shots · 3 in
46
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTAWPG
0 / 5
1.21 xG
High danger
0 / 11
2.55 xG
3 / 17
1.92 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.78 xG
0 / 41
0.69 xG
Low
1 / 34
0.55 xG

The Jets went 0 for 11 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
V. Vanecek
+2.9
UTA · 28/30
B+
C. Hellebuyck
+0.8
WPG · 29/32
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

V. Vanecek stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Jets

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 6–8no goals
    2ndshots 16–8
    1. 00:45WPGD. DeMelo(J. Morrissey, K. Connor)0–1
    2. 10:03UTAM. Sergachevpower play(N. Schmaltz)1–1
    3. 11:07UTAM. Carcone(K. Yamamoto, N. Schmidt)2–1
    4. 15:09WPGM. Scheifelepower play(J. Morrissey, G. Vilardi)2–2
    3rdshots 10–14
    1. 14:24UTAD. Guenther(L. Cooley, J. Peterka)3–2

    score reads UTA–WPG

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.83
    UTA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.015
    UTA puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    50.8%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.83Expected goals4.88
    WPG 56% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal30
    5High-danger chances11
    63All attempts (Corsi)61
    Adjusted for score: UTA 51% · WPG 49%
    Faceoffs · WPG won46%off35%neu71%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    UTA0 / 5 · 1.21 xG
    WPG0 / 11 · 2.55 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    UTA3 / 17 · 1.92 xG
    WPG1 / 16 · 1.78 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    UTA0 / 41 · 0.69 xG
    WPG1 / 34 · 0.55 xG

    WPG went 0-for-11 from high danger on 2.55 expected goals — 2.5 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    UTA
    3 G · 3.83 xG · -0.8
    WPG
    2 G · 4.88 xG · -2.9
    0123456

    UTA finished -0.8 against expected, WPG -2.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    UTA
    WRIST2/32
    TIP IN0/7
    SLAP1/6
    BACKHAND0/3
    SNAP0/1
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/13
    WPG
    WRIST1/27
    TIP IN0/5
    SLAP1/6
    BACKHAND0/3
    SNAP0/3
    DEFLECTED0/2
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/15
    UTA
    WPG
    Off the rush
    2 G on 31
    2.08 xG
    1 G on 28
    3.27 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.46 xG
    0 G on 8
    1.39 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-32, WPG 1-for-27. UTA 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
    V. Vanecek
    UTA · 28/30 · .933
    +2.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/112.5+2.5
    Medium1/161.8+0.8
    Low1/340.6-0.5

    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

    C. Hellebuyck
    WPG · 29/32 · .906
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.2+1.2
    Medium3/171.9-1.1
    Low0/410.7+0.7

    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

    96 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    UTA
    50 shots
    3
    Final
    96 shots
    WPG
    46 shots
    2
    UTA attackWPG attack
    UTA WPG Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, WPG 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. Morrissey
    #44 · D · WPG
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 24:09 on ice · +1
    M. Sergachev
    #98 · D · UTA
    1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 26:09 on ice · -1
    D. DeMelo
    #2 · D · WPG
    1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 22:39 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Oct 26
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 1:18 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 Utah at 2.6 expected goals to Winnipeg's 2.5, with the Mammoth at 52% win probability. This is pick'em territory, and the underlying numbers explain why.

    Utah owns the fundamental play. At 5v5, the Mammoth drive 52.0% expected goals against Winnipeg's 48.0%, and control possession at 53.0% Corsi compared to 49.0%. Yet Utah's 1.003 PDO sits barely ahead of Winnipeg's 0.998—puck luck has been nearly even, which is why this remains a flip rather than a runaway.

    Dylan Guenther is Utah's primary threat: 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes, 28 goals, 15 assists, and three high-danger chances. His 16.8% shooting rate is both sustainable and dangerous. Daniil But has generated 1.01 xG/60 but scored just 2 goals and 2 assists, with a 5.6% shooting rate suggesting upside.

    Winnipeg counters with Kyle Connor, who has converted 25 goals and 30 assists on 0.83 xG/60—efficient offensive production. Nino Niederreiter operates at 0.87 xG/60 with 6 goals, 6 assists, and three high-danger chances, his 8.6% shooting rate offering room for variance.

    Neither team has generated goals from high-danger or rebound situations, an unusual offensive pattern both sides may not sustain.

    Utah's defensive liability is Maveric Lamoureux. Winnipeg's is Colin Miller. Utah's thin possession edge is already baked into the 52% moneyline. There's no margin of error to chase.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    UTA 52%
    52%
    UTA
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    UTA50WPG

    UTA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.5 WPG; 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 →WPG
    52.0%48.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.642.34
    2.392.55
    2.261.90
    1.992.10
    1.0030.998

    UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.998) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · No games yet
    UTA
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    WPG
    0-0-0
    +0 GD · 0d rest
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    WPG 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 48.0%.
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    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
    WPG
    Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
    0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
    Kyle Connor25G 30A
    0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page