Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · VGK at UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Golden Knights

FinalMon, Nov 24

VGKVegas Golden Knights1 UTAUtah Hockey Club5

The verdict · stolen

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.59–3.70 and won anyway.

VGK 1 · UTA 5

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:33 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 dismantled the Golden Knights 5–1 despite a 55–45 expected goals deficit—a clean heist built on perfect goaltending and clinical finishing.

Utah controlled the puck poorly and generated less quality offense than Vegas. Yet the Mammoth won. K. Vejmelka made it possible: 33 of 34 saves (0.971 SV%), +3.59 against expected, perfect on high-danger chances. C. Lindbom (VGK) held 18 of 21 (0.857 SV%), +0.70, but the Golden Knights couldn't finish.

Vegas generated 4.59 expected goals and scored once, going 0 for 6 on high-danger chances. Utah, despite 3.70 expected goals, seized the inefficiency with 3 of 6 from close range and two goals on 26 rush chances. Logan Cooley snapped one home from the wing (P3, 17:43), anchoring the offensive surge.

Utah's win defies the xG chart. Outshot and outchanced, the Mammoth prevailed because their goaltender was a wall and their strikers capitalized when it mattered. Vegas generated the better odds and left empty-handed.

Three Stars

L. Cooley (UTA) — 4G, 1A in 15:20
N. Schmidt (UTA) — 2A in 21:22
D. Guenther (UTA) — 1G, 1A in 15:04

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Nov 24

VGK

UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Golden Knights

Chances 4.6 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

VGK

4.59

UTA

3.70

55% of the chances45%

The board read VGK 1, UTA 5. The chances read VGK 4.6, UTA 3.7.

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

Luck check

UTA

+1.3

goals above expected

UTA3.70 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

VGK4.59 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Golden Knights left 3.6 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 14:54UTAD. Guenther0–1
P1 16:11UTAL. Cooley0–2
P2 05:24VGKI. Barbashev1–2
P3 04:19UTAL. Cooley1–3
P3 15:41UTAL. CooleyEN1–4
P3 17:43UTAL. CooleyEN1–5

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

Where the shots came from

VGK

55 shots

Final

96 shots

UTA

41 shots

VGK UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 5 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

VGKUTA

0 / 6

1.70 xG

High danger

3 / 6

1.64 xG

1 / 18

2.17 xG

Medium

2 / 15

1.45 xG

0 / 50

0.72 xG

Low

0 / 32

0.61 xG

The Golden Knights went 0 for 6 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

K. Vejmelka

+3.6

UTA · 33/34

C. Lindbom

+0.7

VGK · 18/21

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Golden Knights

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 8–8

14:54UTAD. Guenther(L. Cooley, N. Schmidt)0–1
16:11UTAL. Cooley(D. Guenther, N. Schmidt)0–2

2ndshots 16–4

05:24VGKI. Barbashev(J. Eichel, B. Bowman)1–2

3rdshots 10–11

04:19UTAL. Cooley1–3
15:41UTAL. Cooleyempty net(I. Cole)1–4
17:43UTAL. Cooleyempty net1–5

score reads VGK–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.70

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.3

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.081

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

41.7%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.59Expected goals3.70

VGK 55% of the chance quality

34Shots on goal23

6High-danger chances6

74All attempts (Corsi)53

Adjusted for score: VGK 63% · UTA 37%

Faceoffs · UTA won29%off38%neu67%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

VGK0 / 6 · 1.70 xG

UTA3 / 6 · 1.64 xG

Medium dangermid-range

VGK1 / 18 · 2.17 xG

UTA2 / 15 · 1.45 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

VGK0 / 50 · 0.72 xG

UTA0 / 32 · 0.61 xG

VGK went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.70 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

VGK

1 G · 4.59 xG · -3.6

UTA

5 G · 3.70 xG · +1.3

0123456

VGK finished -3.6 against expected, UTA +1.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

VGK

SNAP0/34

SLAP0/9

WRIST0/8

TIP IN0/0

BACKHAND1/2

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/19

UTA

SNAP3/20

SLAP0/5

WRIST1/5

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/2

DEFLECTED1/2

WRAP AROUND0/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/12

VGK

UTA

Off the rush

1 G on 29

3.17 xG

2 G on 26

2.33 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

0.81 xG

1 G on 3

0.38 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VGK went 0-for-34, UTA 3-for-20. 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

C. Lindbom

VGK · 18/21 · .857

+0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/61.6-1.4

Medium2/151.4-0.6

Low0/320.6+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 · 33/34 · .971

+3.6

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.7+1.7

Medium1/182.2+1.2

Low0/500.7+0.7

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

96 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

VGK

55 shots

Final

96 shots

UTA

41 shots

VGK UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

L. Cooley

#92 · C · UTA

4 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 15:20 on ice · +4

N. Schmidt

#88 · D · UTA

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 21:22 on ice · +2

D. Guenther

#11 · R · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:04 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Nov 24

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:31 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 2.5–2.5 game with the Mammoth at 51% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The underlying shot metrics are nearly identical: Vegas at 54.0% xG to Utah's 52.0%, but Utah edges the Corsi battle 53.0% to 52.0%. That divergence—Vegas generating higher-quality chances but Utah controlling volume—reflects the broader story in their PDOs. Vegas sits at 0.983, running cold and due for positive regression, while Utah sits at 1.003. Yet Utah arrives underwater anyway, posting a –9 goal differential over the last 10 games.

On Vegas's side, Brandon Saad operates at 0.91 xG/60 with 3 goals and 6 assists, but he's shooting 4.1% despite drawing only 1 high-danger chance. Tomas Hertl's numbers mirror the same pattern: 0.88 xG/60, 5 goals and 17 assists, 4.3% shooting on just 1 HD goal. Both are banking chances at unsustainable rates, a symptom of Vegas's colder luck.

Utah's edge belongs to Dylan Guenther, who sits at 1.02 xG/60, has 28 goals and 15 assists, and lands 3 high-danger chances while shooting 16.8%—a player generating and finishing at scale. Daniil But tracks at 1.01 xG/60 but has only 2 goals and 2 assists on 1 HD goal against 5.6% shooting, suggesting underperformance.

Both teams show 0% hard-goal and 0% rebound-goal rates, indicating matched red-zone discipline. Vegas carries Rasmus Andersson as a defensive weak link; Utah's is Maveric Lamoureux. Goaltending matters here: K. Vejmelka and A. Schmid both face back-to-back duty, raising the possibility of tired starters or backup switches. Whichever team gets the fresher goaltender steals half a game.

The spread confirms it: this is variance, not insight.

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

4-2-4

+0 GD · 1d rest

UTA

3-4-3

-9 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

K. Vejmelka 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 Mammoth are underwater at -9 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.879 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

K. Vejmelka

back-to-back.909 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