Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · UTA at BUF

Mammoth run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTTue, Nov 4

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 2 · BUF 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:32 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 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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Nov 4

UTA

BUF

Mammoth run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.4 – 1.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

4.36

BUF

1.87

70% of the chances30%

The board read UTA 2, BUF 1. The chances read UTA 4.4, BUF 1.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

UTA

−2.4

goals above expected

UTA4.36 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

BUF1.87 expected · 1 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

P3 03:58UTAN. Schmaltz1–0
P3 07:50BUFN. Ostlund1–1
OT 00:47UTAC. Keller2–1

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

UTA

54 shots

Final

81 shots

BUF

27 shots

UTA BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTABUF

1 / 4

0.92 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.44 xG

1 / 22

2.54 xG

Medium

1 / 11

1.13 xG

0 / 53

0.90 xG

Low

0 / 23

0.30 xG

High-danger looks: UTA 1 of 4, BUF 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A. Lyon

+2.4

BUF · 33/35

B+

K. Vejmelka

+0.9

UTA · 17/18

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Mammoth run the Sabres off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 7–9no goals

2ndshots 15–5no goals

3rdshots 12–3

03:58UTAN. Schmaltz(C. Keller, J. Marino)1–0
07:50BUFN. Ostlund(I. Rosen)1–1

OTshots 1–1

00:47UTAC. Keller(M. Sergachev, K. Vejmelka)2–1

score reads UTA–BUF

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.36

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.4

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.998

UTA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

68.7%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.36Expected goals1.87

UTA 70% of the chance quality

35Shots on goal18

4High-danger chances2

79All attempts (Corsi)36

Adjusted for score: UTA 69% · BUF 32%

Faceoffs · BUF won26%off27%neu60%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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

UTA finished -2.4 against expected, BUF -0.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

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

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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 17/18 · .944

+0.9

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.4+0.4

Medium1/111.1+0.1

Low0/230.3+0.3

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

A. Lyon

BUF · 33/35 · .943

+2.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/40.9-0.1

Medium1/222.5+1.5

Low0/530.9+0.9

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

54 shots

Final

81 shots

BUF

27 shots

UTA BUF GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, BUF 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

C. Keller

#9 · R · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 20:07 on ice · +2

M. Sergachev

#98 · D · UTA

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 24:53 on ice

J. Marino

#6 · D · UTA

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:09 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Nov 4

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 2:30 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 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.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

BUF 50%

50%

BUF

Model favorite

50%

UTA50BUF

BUF by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.6 BUF; 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 →BUF

52.0%50.0%

53.0%49.0%

2.642.55

2.392.55

2.262.35

1.991.90

1.0031.020

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.020) says BUF has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

UTA

7-3-0

+8 GD · 2d rest

BUF

5-2-3

+5 GD · 3d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.020

BUF PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
The Sabres' PDO is 1.020 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

2 days rest.880 last start

Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

BUF

Expected in goal

U. Luukkonen

3 days rest.912 last start

Backup Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen · +10.5 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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page