Backcheck
Recap · UTA at BUF

Mammoth run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 11, 2:32 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
UTA
Utah Mammoth
2
Home
BUF
Buffalo Sabres
1
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.36Expected goals1.87
70% share for the better side
35Shot attempts (SOG)18
4High-danger chances2
79Corsi (all attempts)36
Score-adjusted: 69% / 32%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Mammoth's 2-1 overtime victory aligned with the underlying metrics—they controlled 70% of 5v5 expected goals (4.36 to 1.87) and held high-danger chances 4 to 2. Yet Utah's waste tempered the margin: they underperformed their xG by 2.36 goals despite that dominance. A. Lyon (BUF) saved 33 of 35 shots at a 0.943 SV% while posting 2.36 goals above expected—the difference between Utah's shot-quality advantage and the final score. Buffalo managed 34% of shot attempts (18 to 35) and scored once on 1.87 xG, underperforming by 0.87 goals. Utah converted 2 of 33 rush chances; Clayton Keller's wrist shot from the slot at 00:47 of overtime provided the decisive exception.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA1 / 4 · 0.92 xG
BUF0 / 2 · 0.44 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA1 / 22 · 2.54 xG
BUF1 / 11 · 1.13 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA0 / 53 · 0.90 xG
BUF0 / 23 · 0.30 xG

UTA went 1-for-22 from medium danger on 2.54 expected goals — 1.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
2 G · 4.36 xG · -2.4
BUF
1 G · 1.87 xG · -0.9
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. VejmelkaUTA
+0.9
A. LyonBUF
+2.4

UTA finished -2.4 against expected, BUF -0.9 — A. Lyon (BUF) saved 2.4 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST1/25
SLAP0/13
TIP IN0/6
SNAP1/5
BACKHAND0/3
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/25
BUF
WRIST0/14
SLAP0/2
TIP IN0/4
SNAP1/3
BACKHAND0/3
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/9
UTA
BUF
Off the rush
2 G on 33 · 2.67 xG
1 G on 16 · 1.30 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5 · 0.71 xG
0 G on 3 · 0.36 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-25, BUF 0-for-14. UTA scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 20:07 TOI · +2
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:53 TOI
J. Marino
#6 · D · UTA
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:09 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • A. Lyon (BUF) stopped 2.4 goals above expected.
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 33 rush chances.
  • BUF created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • UTA created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • UTA underperformed xG by 2.4 — wasted quality chances.
  • A. Lyon (BUF) saved 2.4 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · UTA at BUF · 7:00 PM ET

Mammoth at Sabres: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 2:30 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

50%
BUF
Model favorite
50%
50%
UTA50BUF

BUF by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.62.6 BUF; 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 →BUF
52.0%5v5 xG%50.0%
53.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.64xGF / 602.55
2.39xGA / 602.55
2.26Goals for / gm2.35
1.99Goals against / gm1.90
1.003PDO — luck, not skill1.020

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 1.020) says BUF has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.6–2.6 tie with the Sabres at 50% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Utah dominates territorial play: 53.0% Corsi and 52.0% xG% project a team that will camp in Buffalo's zone. The Sabres stay competitive at 50.0% xG%, suggesting they convert their limited chances at a higher rate—dangerous efficiency from a smaller volume.

Buffalo's PDO sits at 1.020, running hot enough that some regression is likely. Utah's 1.003 suggests their underlying play is holding up; luck hasn't padded the record. That matters: Utah's possession advantage means they can weather variance. Buffalo needs their efficiency to stick.

Dylan Guenther and Jason Zucker are the game's anchors. Guenther (28G, 16.8% shooting, 1.02 xG/60) combines volume and finish; he has 3 hard-scored goals—high-danger chances he converts. Zucker (14G, 15.1% shooting, 1.07 xG/60) edges him in shot quality with 6 hard-scored goals, marking him as the most dangerous individual on ice. Either one getting space dictates the game's rhythm.

Below them, Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2G) and Josh Doan (15G, 11.5% shooting) represent each team's secondary punch—lower volume, similar quality. The talent dropoff from Guenther/Zucker to their supporting cast is where Utah's depth falters slightly.

Utah's defensive weak link, Maveric Lamoureux, faces pressure to contain Buffalo's transitions. Jack Quinn handles similar duty for the Sabres. Utah's possession should tire Buffalo's backline; Buffalo's shooting accuracy means Utah cannot afford sloppiness. This becomes positional hockey—half-court, grinding, patient. Both teams show no particular strength in transition or rebound play, so chaos is unlikely.

Whichever team sustains its edge longest wins a game that the models genuinely cannot split.

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
BUF
Jason Zucker14G 14A
1.07 xG/60 · 6 HD · 15.1% sh
Josh Doan15G 18A
1.01 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.5% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters