Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Vegas Golden Knights sweater
← Thu, Nov 20 · the slate
Breakdown · VGK at UTA

Golden Knights pull away from the Mammoth

FinalThu, Nov 20
VGKVegas Golden Knights4UTAUtah Hockey Club1
The verdict · earned

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

VGK 4 · UTA 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:00 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 underperformed their expected goals by 1.98 goals. The Mammoth generated 2.98 xG but scored one—a gap that explained the 4-1 scoreline despite Golden Knights holding only a 3.52-to-2.98 xG edge. A. Schmid's 0.962 save percentage and Utah's inability to finish explained the result.

Utah held 44% of shot attempts (26 to 33), created 6 rebound opportunities, and generated shots averaging 0.051 xG per attempt. None converted. Golden Knights were efficient: 2 goals on 5 high-danger chances (40%), and 3 on 23 rush attempts. B. Bowman's tip-in from the doorstep at 00:45 of the third was the turning point.

K. Vejmelka (UTA) finished 0.879 SV%; A. Schmid (VGK) recorded 0.962.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 20
VGK
4
UTA
1

Golden Knights pull away from the Mammoth

Chances 3.5 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
VGK
3.52
UTA
2.98
54% of the chances46%

The board read VGK 4, UTA 1. The chances read VGK 3.5, UTA 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
VGK
+0.5
goals above expected
VGK3.52 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA2.98 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth left 2.0 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 03:09VGKJ. Eichel1–0
  2. P2 03:28VGKB. Hutton2–0
  3. P2 06:38UTAN. Schmidt2–1
  4. P2 16:51VGKJ. Eichel3–1
  5. P3 00:45VGKB. Bowman4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
VGK
39 shots
4
Final
81 shots
UTA
42 shots
1
VGK attackUTA attack
VGK UTA Goal
39
shots · 4 in
42
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
VGKUTA
2 / 5
1.35 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.68 xG
1 / 14
1.57 xG
Medium
1 / 16
1.67 xG
1 / 29
0.60 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.62 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Schmid
+2.0
VGK · 25/26
D
K. Vejmelka
−0.5
UTA · 29/33
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Golden Knights pull away from 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 7–9no goals
    2ndshots 17–9
    1. 03:09VGKJ. Eichel(P. Dorofeyev, S. Theodore)1–0
    2. 03:28VGKB. Hutton(C. Reinhardt)2–0
    3. 06:38UTAN. Schmidt(I. Cole, C. Keller)2–1
    4. 16:51VGKJ. Eichel(B. Bowman, S. Theodore)3–1
    3rdshots 9–8
    1. 00:45VGKB. Bowman(J. Eichel, S. Theodore)4–1

    score reads VGK–UTA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.52
    VGK chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.5
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.066
    VGK puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    44.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.52Expected goals2.98
    VGK 54% of the chance quality
    33Shots on goal26
    5High-danger chances3
    48All attempts (Corsi)59
    Adjusted for score: VGK 41% · UTA 59%
    Faceoffs · UTA won33%off33%neu65%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    VGK2 / 5 · 1.35 xG
    UTA0 / 3 · 0.68 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    VGK1 / 14 · 1.57 xG
    UTA1 / 16 · 1.67 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    VGK1 / 29 · 0.60 xG
    UTA0 / 40 · 0.62 xG

    UTA went 0-for-3 from high danger on 0.68 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    VGK
    4 G · 3.52 xG · +0.5
    UTA
    1 G · 2.98 xG · -2.0
    012345

    VGK finished +0.5 against expected, UTA -2.0.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    VGK
    SNAP2/28
    TIP IN1/4
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND1/3
    BAT0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    WRIST0/0
    OTHER0/9
    UTA
    SNAP1/22
    TIP IN0/8
    SLAP0/8
    BACKHAND0/2
    BAT0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    WRIST0/1
    OTHER0/17
    VGK
    UTA
    Off the rush
    3 G on 23
    2.46 xG
    1 G on 25
    1.86 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.27 xG
    0 G on 6
    0.77 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: VGK went 2-for-28, UTA 1-for-22. VGK 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
    A. Schmid
    VGK · 25/26 · .962
    +2.0
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium1/161.7+0.7
    Low0/400.6+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 · 29/33 · .879
    -0.5
    saved above expected
    D
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/51.4-0.7
    Medium1/141.6+0.6
    Low1/290.6-0.4

    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
    VGK
    39 shots
    4
    Final
    81 shots
    UTA
    42 shots
    1
    VGK attackUTA attack
    VGK UTA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — VGK 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
    S. Theodore
    #27 · D · VGK
    0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 21:34 on ice · +2
    J. Eichel
    #9 · C · VGK
    2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 16:45 on ice · +2
    B. Bowman
    #42 · R · VGK
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:25 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Nov 20
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:58 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 has this dead even. A 2.5–2.5 projected scoring frame with the Mammoth at 51% win probability is as close to a pick'em as advanced forecasting gets.

    Recency favors Vegas. The Golden Knights sit at 4–3–3 over their last ten, while Utah has collapsed to minus-12 in goal differential across the same span. The underlying play is murkier. Vegas owns a 54.0% expected goals share at five-on-five versus Utah's 52.0%, yet Utah leads in Corsi at 53.0% to Vegas's 52.0%—shot attempt volume without corresponding shot quality. More revealing: Vegas's PDO is 0.983, well below neutral, suggesting positive regression ahead, while Utah's sits at 1.003, inflated and unsustainable.

    Goaltending backstory matters. Both V. Vanecek and A. Schmid are working on back-to-backs; either team could pivot to a backup or roll out a fatigued starter.

    Players to Watch

    VGK

    • Tomas Hertl — 0.88 xG/60, 5G 17A, 1 HD goals, 4.3% shooting
    • Brandon Saad — 0.91 xG/60, 3G 6A, 1 HD goals, 4.1% shooting (inactive)

    UTA

    • Dylan Guenther — 1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting
    • Daniil But — 1.01 xG/60, 2G 2A, 1 HD goals, 5.6% shooting

    Hertl anchors Vegas's offense; Guenther's 28-goal output dominates for Utah. Neither team generates secondary scoring from high-danger chances or rebounds—both at 0%—leaving outcomes to primary shot efficiency and discipline. Rasmus Andersson is Vegas's defensive vulnerability, while Maveric Lamoureux holds that role for Utah.

    The model's output reflects genuine ambiguity. This is a coin flip because both teams own credible paths to victory.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    UTA 51%
    51%
    UTA
    Model favorite
    49%
    51%
    VGK50UTA

    UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VGK 2.5–2.5 UTA; 19% 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
    VGK← edge
    edge →UTA
    54.0%52.0%
    52.0%53.0%
    2.522.64
    2.112.39
    2.122.26
    2.101.99
    0.9831.003

    UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.983 vs 1.003) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    VGK
    4-3-3
    -1 GD · 1d rest
    UTA
    2-5-3
    -12 GD · 1d rest
    0.983
    VGK 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 Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • V. Vanecek is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • A. Schmid is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Golden Knights are the hotter team by points pace (4-3-3 in their last 10).
    • The Mammoth are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    VGK
    Expected in goal
    A. Schmid
    back-to-back.895 last start
    Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 GSAx this season
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    UTA
    Expected in goal
    V. Vanecek
    back-to-back.864 last start
    Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

    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
    VGK
    Brandon Saad3G 6A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
    Tomas Hertl5G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% 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