Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
Breakdown · NYR at UTA

Mammoth hold off the Rangers

The verdict · earned

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

NYR 2 · UTA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:22 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's 3-2 victory reflected its possession dominance: 55% of expected goals (3.35 to 2.70) and 61% of shot attempts (34 to 22).

Both teams scored twice on the rush—Utah on 28 chances, New York on 25—demonstrating equivalent transition efficiency. Utah separated itself in grinding offense: five rebound opportunities yielded one goal, while New York's three chances produced none. A slender margin in a game where shot volume commanded the outcome.

K. Vejmelka compiled a 0.909 save percentage (+0.70 above expected). J. Quick stopped 31 of 34 shots (0.912 SV%). Utah's possession advantage was too much for either goaltender to counter.

Nick DeSimone's slap shot from the top of the circles (P3, 07:32) sealed the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 22
NYR
2
UTA
3

Mammoth hold off the Rangers

Chances 2.7 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
NYR
2.70
UTA
3.35
45% of the chances55%

The board read NYR 2, UTA 3. The chances read NYR 2.7, UTA 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
−0.3
goals above expected
UTA3.35 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NYR2.70 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 10:08UTAJ. Peterka0–1
  2. P1 15:19NYRV. Gavrikov1–1
  3. P2 08:07NYRA. Panarin2–1
  4. P2 11:15UTAC. Keller2–2
  5. P3 07:32UTAN. DeSimone2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
NYR
40 shots
2
Final
89 shots
UTA
49 shots
3
NYR attackUTA attack
NYR UTA Goal
40
shots · 2 in
49
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
NYRUTA
0 / 2
0.58 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.88 xG
1 / 15
1.45 xG
Medium
2 / 13
1.66 xG
1 / 39
0.67 xG
Low
1 / 42
0.81 xG

High-danger looks: NYR 0 of 2, UTA 0 of 3.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
K. Vejmelka
+0.7
UTA · 20/22
B
J. Quick
+0.3
NYR · 31/34
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth hold off the Rangers

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 12–13
  1. 10:08UTAJ. Peterka(N. Schmidt, J. McBain)0–1
  2. 15:19NYRV. Gavrikov(A. Fox, M. Zibanejad)1–1
2ndshots 3–8
  1. 08:07NYRA. Panarin(V. Trocheck, V. Gavrikov)2–1
  2. 11:15UTAC. Keller(K. Yamamoto)2–2
3rdshots 7–13
  1. 07:32UTAN. DeSimone2–3

score reads NYR–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.35
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.016
UTA puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
50.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.70Expected goals3.35
UTA 55% of the chance quality
22Shots on goal34
2High-danger chances3
56All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: NYR 50% · UTA 50%
Faceoffs · UTA won39%off29%neu30%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NYR0 / 2 · 0.58 xG
UTA0 / 3 · 0.88 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NYR1 / 15 · 1.45 xG
UTA2 / 13 · 1.66 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NYR1 / 39 · 0.67 xG
UTA1 / 42 · 0.81 xG

UTA went 0-for-3 from high danger on 0.88 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NYR
2 G · 2.70 xG · -0.7
UTA
3 G · 3.35 xG · -0.3
01234

NYR finished -0.7 against expected, UTA -0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NYR
SNAP1/25
SLAP0/4
TIP IN1/5
WRIST0/3
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/2
POKE0/0
OTHER0/16
UTA
SNAP1/34
SLAP1/7
TIP IN0/1
WRIST0/2
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/1
POKE1/1
OTHER0/9
NYR
UTA
Off the rush
2 G on 25
2.06 xG
2 G on 28
2.26 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.35 xG
1 G on 5
0.54 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: NYR went 1-for-25, UTA 1-for-34. NYR 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
J. Quick
NYR · 31/34 · .912
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/30.9+0.9
Medium2/131.7-0.3
Low1/420.8-0.2

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 · 20/22 · .909
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.6+0.6
Medium1/151.4+0.5
Low1/390.7-0.3

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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
NYR
40 shots
2
Final
89 shots
UTA
49 shots
3
NYR attackUTA attack
NYR UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — NYR 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
V. Gavrikov
#44 · D · NYR
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:20 on ice · +2
A. Fox
#23 · D · NYR
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 27:23 on ice · +2
A. Panarin
#10 · L · NYR
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 22:37 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Nov 22
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:18 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

Utah has the cleaner numbers in this matchup. The model prices the Mammoth at 56% win probability with a projected 2.3–2.6 goal outcome—a narrow margin that reflects Utah's underlying edge across shot quality and territorial control. At 5v5, the Mammoth generate 52.0% expected goals to the Rangers' 48.0%, and their 53.0% Corsi rate suggests they'll control most of the hockey. When a team dominates possession and shot quality, it eventually shows up on the scoreboard.

But Utah's recent results don't match their underlying dominance. The Mammoth are -12 in goal differential over their last 10 games, a collapse that questions whether these metrics can be trusted this late in a season shaped by variance and exhaustion. That's the tension embedded in this pick: Utah has earned the model's lean through consistent process, yet their form is conspicuously broken.

Goaltending adds a layer of uncertainty. K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back, which typically signals fatigue or a backup start if Utah chooses to rest him—either way, a disadvantage at net. I. Shesterkin faces the same burden on the Rangers' side, meaning neither team can reliably count on their starter's best performance.

The player matchups tip toward Utah's advantage. Dylan Guenther has been the Mammoth's engine, generating 1.02 xG/60 with 28 goals and 15 assists; he's delivered 3 high-danger chances and is shooting at 16.8%, well above league baseline. The Rangers' best offensive engine, Adam Sykora, generates 0.91 xG/60 with 3 goals and 1 assist—a stark gap in volume and finishing. Gabe Perreault (8 goals, 11 assists, 13.1% shooting) provides secondary depth, but the Rangers still trail Utah's forward advantage.

The Mammoth's edge in xG and Corsi should be decisive against a Rangers team that hasn't generated the underlying play to keep pace. The model is right to favor Utah at 56%. The risk is execution: Utah's recent form suggests they've misfired on these processes, and tired goaltending compounds the uncertainty. But when the process is this clean and the matchup this lopsided, the model's lean holds up.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 56%
56%
UTA
Model favorite
44%
56%
NYR50UTA

UTA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NYR 2.3–2.6 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
NYR← edge
edge →UTA
48.0%52.0%
49.0%53.0%
2.262.64
2.402.39
1.882.26
1.901.99
1.0091.003

UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.009 vs 1.003) says NYR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
NYR
5-5-0
-1 GD · 1d rest
UTA
2-5-3
-12 GD · 1d rest
1.009
NYR PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
UTA 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.
  • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • I. Shesterkin is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Mammoth are underwater at -12 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
NYR
Expected in goal
I. Shesterkin
back-to-back.879 last start
Backup Igor Shesterkin · +21.3 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
K. Vejmelka
back-to-back.879 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
NYR
Adam Sykora3G 1A
0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
Gabe Perreault8G 11A
0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% 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