Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater
← Sun, Nov 2 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at UTA

Lightning hold off the Mammoth

FinalSun, Nov 2
TBLTampa Bay Lightning4UTAUtah Hockey Club2
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 4 · UTA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:18 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 Lightning beat the Mammoth 4–2. The underlying metrics agreed: Tampa generated 4.28 expected goals to Utah's 3.03, a gap rooted in shot quality. Utah held 51% of shot attempts (27–26) but their efficiency of 0.057 expected value per shot significantly trailed Tampa's 0.082. The Lightning earned 6 high-danger chances to Utah's 4, converted 3 of 17 rush attempts (Utah: 2 of 25), and generated 4 rebound opportunities by crashing the net (1 goal).

Both goalies outperformed their expected save totals. K. Vejmelka stopped 1.28 more than assigned (22 saves, 0.880 SV%); J. Johansson exceeded by 1.03. Even Vejmelka's play couldn't offset Utah's fundamental inefficiency—they generated dangerous looks well below their opponent's rate.

Brandon Hagel's wrist shot from the slot (P3, 19:44) opened the decisive stretch. Tampa's underlying edge was never in doubt.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 2
TBL
4
UTA
2

Lightning hold off the Mammoth

Chances 4.3 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
4.28
UTA
3.03
59% of the chances41%

The board read TBL 4, UTA 2. The chances read TBL 4.3, UTA 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
TBL
−0.3
goals above expected
TBL4.28 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA3.03 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:55UTAL. Crouse0–1
  2. P1 15:17TBLY. Gourde1–1
  3. P2 02:47TBLA. Cirelli2–1
  4. P3 02:21UTAK. Yamamoto2–2
  5. P3 12:06TBLJ. Guentzel3–2
  6. P3 19:44TBLB. HagelEN4–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
38 shots
4
Final
76 shots
UTA
38 shots
2
TBL attackUTA attack
TBL UTA Goal
38
shots · 4 in
38
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLUTA
1 / 6
2.65 xG
High danger
0 / 4
1.02 xG
2 / 12
1.23 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.37 xG
1 / 34
0.40 xG
Low
0 / 36
0.64 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
K. Vejmelka
+1.3
UTA · 22/25
B+
J. Johansson
+1.0
TBL · 25/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Lightning hold off the Mammoth

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 9–6
  1. 05:55UTAL. Crouse(I. Cole)0–1
  2. 15:17TBLY. Gourde(E. Lilleberg, Z. Girgensons)1–1
2ndshots 10–9
  1. 02:47TBLA. Cirelli(J. Guentzel, V. Hedman)2–1
3rdshots 7–12
  1. 02:21UTAK. Yamamoto(I. Cole)2–2
  2. 12:06TBLJ. Guentzel3–2
  3. 19:44TBLB. Hagelempty net(R. McDonagh)4–2

score reads TBL–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.28
TBL chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.039
TBL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
49.5%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.28Expected goals3.03
TBL 59% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal27
6High-danger chances4
52All attempts (Corsi)53
Adjusted for score: TBL 48% · UTA 52%
Faceoffs · UTA won50%off77%neu50%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
TBL1 / 6 · 2.65 xG
UTA0 / 4 · 1.02 xG
Medium dangermid-range
TBL2 / 12 · 1.23 xG
UTA2 / 13 · 1.37 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
TBL1 / 34 · 0.40 xG
UTA0 / 36 · 0.64 xG

TBL went 1-for-6 from high danger on 2.65 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
TBL
4 G · 4.28 xG · -0.3
UTA
2 G · 3.03 xG · -1.0
012345

TBL finished -0.3 against expected, UTA -1.0.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
TBL
SNAP2/19
WRIST1/10
SLAP1/4
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/14
UTA
SNAP2/25
WRIST0/2
SLAP0/7
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/15
TBL
UTA
Off the rush
3 G on 17
2.04 xG
2 G on 25
2.27 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.74 xG
0 G on 1
0.15 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 2-for-19, UTA 2-for-25. TBL 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
J. Johansson
TBL · 25/27 · .926
+1.0
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/41.0+1.0
Medium2/131.4-0.6
Low0/360.6+0.6

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

K. Vejmelka
UTA · 22/25 · .880
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/62.6+1.6
Medium2/121.2-0.8
Low1/340.4-0.6

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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
TBL
38 shots
4
Final
76 shots
UTA
38 shots
2
TBL attackUTA attack
TBL UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL left, UTA 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
I. Cole
#28 · D · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:32 on ice · +1
J. Guentzel
#59 · C · TBL
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 14:56 on ice · +1
B. Hagel
#38 · L · TBL
1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 23:08 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Nov 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:17 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

This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The model projects a 2.5–2.6 goal game with the Mammoth at 51% win probability—a margin so thin that variance determines the outcome.

Utah is the hotter team. The Mammoth have gone 8-2-0 in their last 10 games, a recent sample that matters when efficiency converges. Over the full season, though, the gap is minimal. Tampa Bay's xG% sits at 54.0% against Utah's 52.0%, and both teams generate 53.0% Corsi—essentially equivalent possession. The Lightning edge in shot quality by half a percentage point, but not decisively.

What separates them is luck. Tampa Bay's PDO of 1.019 indicates they're running hot and due for regression. Utah's 1.003 sits closer to the long-term mean, meaning their recent surge carries less statistical cushion.

Brandon Hagel powers Tampa Bay at 1.10 xG/60, combining 23 goals and 26 assists with 2 high-danger chances. His 15.8% shooting rate won't sustain, but the volume does. Anthony Cirelli adds secondary depth at 0.95 xG/60 with 5 high-danger goals on 17.0% shooting.

Utah counters with Dylan Guenther leading at 1.02 xG/60. His 28 goals and 15 assists rank among the league's best this season, though his 16.8% shooting suggests some decline ahead. Daniil But profiles as a depth scorer—1.01 xG/60 on just 2 goals and 2 assists, with 1 high-danger chance. His 5.6% shooting is either due or noise at that volume.

The real story is equivalence. Both teams share 53.0% Corsi, both post 0% high-danger and rebound goal rates, and neither holds a decisive structural edge. Tampa Bay's shot quality and Hagel's consistency tilt the model, but Utah's recent form and Maveric Lamoureux's defensive positioning keep them competitive.

Victor Hedman anchors Tampa's defense as the nominal weak link. Even "weak" here means exploitable on certain plays, not a persistent liability. The Lightning's PDO edge is real but thin enough that Utah's momentum could override it.

This is a rare game where the model doesn't know. Take the Mammoth if form beats the long sample. Take the Lightning if efficiency tops recent results. Expect to sweat either way.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 51%
51%
UTA
Model favorite
49%
51%
TBL50UTA

UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score TBL 2.5–2.6 UTA; 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
TBL← edge
edge →UTA
54.0%52.0%
53.0%53.0%
2.672.64
2.282.39
2.382.26
1.851.99
1.0191.003

TBL holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.019 vs 1.003) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
TBL
5-3-2
+1 GD · 3d rest
UTA
8-2-0
+11 GD · 4d rest
1.019
TBL PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth are the hotter team by points pace (8-2-0 in their last 10).
  • The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
TBL
Expected in goal
A. Vasilevskiy
3 days rest.952 last start
Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

UTA
Expected in goal
K. Vejmelka
4 days rest.783 last start
Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 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
TBL
Brandon Hagel23G 26A
1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 15.8% sh
Anthony Cirelli15G 18A
0.95 xG/60 · 5 HD · 17.0% sh
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page