Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
← Tue, Nov 18 · the slate
Breakdown · UTA at SJS

Sharks steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

Final / OTTue, Nov 18
UTAUtah Hockey Club2SJSSan Jose Sharks3
The verdict · stolen

The Sharks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.25–2.09 and won anyway.

UTA 2 · SJS 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:48 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 Sharks won a game they had no business winning. San Jose edged Utah 3–2 in overtime despite the Mammoth generating 3.25 expected goals to their 2.09—a 61–39 split at 5v5 that should have favored the home team. Goaltending theft and surgical finishing made the difference.

Utah controlled play by every measure: 26 shot attempts to San Jose's 22, seven high-danger chances to two. The Sharks converted two goals from low-danger areas. They were lethal on the rush, scoring three goals on 13 chances. Utah scored twice on 25 rush attempts—a stark efficiency gap.

Y. Askarov stopped 1.25 goals above expected. Utah couldn't convert on any of its seven high-danger opportunities, a drought unlikely to repeat. The Sharks' goaltending and their ability to exploit mistakes compensated for being thoroughly outplayed in both volume and quality of chances.

Macklin Celebrini finished the game at 02:52 of overtime with a wrist shot from the circles. He recorded three goals in 19:41, a burst that exemplified San Jose's night: every shot counted.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Nov 18
UTA
2
SJS
3

Sharks steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

Chances 3.3 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.25
SJS
2.09
61% of the chances39%

The board read UTA 2, SJS 3. The chances read UTA 3.3, SJS 2.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+0.9
goals above expected
SJS2.09 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA3.25 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 01:47SJSM. Celebrini0–1
  2. P1 05:58SJSM. Celebrini0–2
  3. P3 09:25UTAJ. Peterka1–2
  4. P3 17:09UTAJ. Peterka2–2
  5. OT 02:52SJSM. CelebriniPP2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
37 shots
2
Final
66 shots
SJS
29 shots
3
UTA attackSJS attack
UTA SJS Goal
37
shots · 2 in
29
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTASJS
0 / 7
1.74 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.49 xG
1 / 8
1.03 xG
Medium
1 / 11
1.25 xG
1 / 43
0.48 xG
Low
2 / 28
0.34 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
Y. Askarov
+1.3
SJS · 24/26
D-
V. Vanecek
−0.9
UTA · 19/22
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

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 7–7
  1. 01:47SJSM. Celebrini(W. Smith, P. Kurashev)0–1
  2. 05:58SJSM. Celebrini(C. Graf)0–2
2ndshots 7–9no goals
    3rdshots 11–4
    1. 09:25UTAJ. Peterka(L. Crouse, L. Cooley)1–2
    2. 17:09UTAJ. Peterka(N. Schmidt)2–2
    OTshots 1–2
    1. 02:52SJSM. Celebrinipower play(W. Eklund, W. Smith)2–3

    score reads UTA–SJS

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.09
    SJS chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.9
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.039
    SJS puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    41.4%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.25Expected goals2.09
    UTA 61% of the chance quality
    26Shots on goal22
    7High-danger chances2
    58All attempts (Corsi)41
    Adjusted for score: UTA 65% · SJS 35%
    Faceoffs · SJS won59%off54%neu52%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    UTA0 / 7 · 1.74 xG
    SJS0 / 2 · 0.49 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    UTA1 / 8 · 1.03 xG
    SJS1 / 11 · 1.25 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    UTA1 / 43 · 0.48 xG
    SJS2 / 28 · 0.34 xG

    UTA went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.74 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    UTA
    2 G · 3.25 xG · -1.3
    SJS
    3 G · 2.09 xG · +0.9
    01234

    UTA finished -1.3 against expected, SJS +0.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    UTA
    WRIST1/18
    SLAP0/7
    BACKHAND0/5
    TIP IN0/3
    SNAP1/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/21
    SJS
    WRIST3/15
    SLAP0/8
    BACKHAND0/3
    TIP IN0/2
    SNAP0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/12
    UTA
    SJS
    Off the rush
    2 G on 25
    2.20 xG
    3 G on 13
    1.13 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.45 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.46 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-18, SJS 3-for-15. SJS 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
    V. Vanecek
    UTA · 19/22 · .864
    -0.9
    saved above expected
    D-
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.5+0.5
    Medium1/111.3+0.3
    Low2/280.3-1.7

    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

    Y. Askarov
    SJS · 24/26 · .923
    +1.3
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/71.7+1.7
    Medium1/81.0+0.0
    Low1/430.5-0.5

    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

    66 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    UTA
    37 shots
    2
    Final
    66 shots
    SJS
    29 shots
    3
    UTA attackSJS attack
    UTA SJS Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, SJS 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
    M. Celebrini
    #71 · C · SJS
    3 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 19:41 on ice · +1
    W. Smith
    #2 · C · SJS
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 17:23 on ice
    J. Peterka
    #77 · R · UTA
    2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 13:57 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Tue, Nov 18
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:46 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

    Models project a UTA 2.6-2.5 SJS game with the Mammoth at 52% win probability — essentially a pick'em. San Jose owns recent form, but Utah controls the puck; both edges feel real.

    The Sharks are 6-3-1 over their last 10, the better recent record. Utah's underwater at -5 goal differential in the same span. But San Jose's hot streak has masked underlying play. Utah leads 5v5 xG% 52.0% to 48.0% and drives Corsi at 53.0%—the territorial tilt favors possession play, not results.

    Utah's issue isn't play quality, it's execution. Dylan Guenther (28G 15A, 1.02 xG/60) generates chances at an elite rate but converts at 16.8%, a sustainable mark for this volume. Daniil But's 5.6% shooting (2G 2A from 1.01 xG/60) sits well below expectation and should improve eventually, but San Jose shouldn't bank on correction arriving tonight.

    For San Jose, Pavol Regenda (5G 1A, 1.10 xG/60) is marked inactive—a significant hit to depth. Igor Chernyshov (6G 8A, 0.91 xG/60, 15.0% shooting) absorbs that load, though his stats suggest he's outperforming chances. That 15.0% won't persist; regression is a when, not an if.

    Utah's Maveric Lamoureux (the team's defensive weak link) faces pressure from a suddenly lethal San Jose. Conversely, Chernyshov's own defensive liability—despite offensive production—gives Utah an opening. PDO favors neither team (UTA 1.003, SJS 0.998), so luck isn't explaining the result gap.

    The models see what the records miss: Utah's underlying play—52.0% xG—suggests the Mammoth should be winning more. San Jose's 6-3-1 run is real, but Utah's possession edge, if converted at historical rates, flips this into an away win. That's why the projection sits so tight: Utah's depth of play justifies favorites' odds, but San Jose's momentum is recent and measurable.

    This is a true flip. Take the underlying advantage or the hot streak. Either case is defensible.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    UTA 52%
    52%
    UTA
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    UTA50SJS

    UTA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.5 SJS; 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 →SJS
    52.0%48.0%
    53.0%47.0%
    2.642.33
    2.392.56
    2.261.99
    1.992.32
    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 · Last 10
    UTA
    4-5-1
    -5 GD · 3d rest
    SJS
    6-3-1
    +6 GD · 2d rest
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.998
    SJS 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.
    • The Sharks are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
    • The Mammoth are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    UTA
    Expected in goal
    K. Vejmelka
    3 days rest.905 last start
    Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    SJS
    Expected in goal
    A. Nedeljkovic
    2 days rest.864 last start
    Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
    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
    SJS
    Pavol Regenda5G 1A
    1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 16.1% sh
    Igor Chernyshov6G 8A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page