Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
← Sat, Nov 29 · the slate
Breakdown · UTA at STL

Blues shut out the Mammoth, 1-0

FinalSat, Nov 29
UTAUtah Hockey Club0STLSt. Louis Blues1
The verdict · earned

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

UTA 0 · STL 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:17 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 expected-goals line reads 3.50–3.14 in St. Louis's favor—a near-even split despite the 1-0 scoreline. Both teams had chances. Both teams squandered them, leaving 2.50 goals on the board for the Blues and 3.14 for Utah.

The Blues controlled volume (51% shot attempts, 19–18 on goal) and efficiency (0.074 xG per shot vs Utah's 0.049). That gap separated the two teams.

Dylan Holloway ended the impasse at 18:10 of the second period with a wrist shot from the top of the circles. One goal proved sufficient.

The story is conversion failure. The Blues went 0 for 7 on high-danger chances; Utah went 0 for 6. St. Louis had better looks but still couldn't execute.

J. Hofer (STL) stopped all 18 attempts and saved 3.14 goals above expected. That performance defined the game—not dominance, but precision. K. Vejmelka (UTA) answered with 18 stops on 19 attempts (0.947 SV%, +2.50 above expected). His work kept Utah in the game.

P. Broberg earned an assist in 23:40; R. Thomas added one in 21:27. Holloway's wrist shot—the game's only moment of finish—was all the difference.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 29
UTA
0
STL
1

Blues shut out the Mammoth, 1-0

Chances 3.1 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.14
STL
3.50
47% of the chances53%

The board read UTA 0, STL 1. The chances read UTA 3.1, STL 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
−2.5
goals above expected
STL3.50 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA3.14 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth left 3.1 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 18:10STLD. Holloway0–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
39 shots
0
Final
72 shots
STL
33 shots
1
UTA attackSTL attack
UTA STL Goal
39
shots · 0 in
33
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTASTL
0 / 6
1.60 xG
High danger
0 / 7
1.60 xG
0 / 11
0.98 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.54 xG
0 / 47
0.56 xG
Low
0 / 25
0.36 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 6 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
J. Hofer
+3.1
STL · 18/18
A+
K. Vejmelka
+2.5
UTA · 18/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues shut out the Mammoth, 1-0

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 4–8no goals
    2ndshots 4–8
    1. 18:10STLD. Holloway(P. Broberg, R. Thomas)0–1
    3rdshots 10–3no goals

      score reads UTA–STL

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      3.50
      STL chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −2.5
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.021
      STL puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      42.3%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.14Expected goals3.50
      STL 53% of the chance quality
      18Shots on goal19
      6High-danger chances7
      64All attempts (Corsi)47
      Adjusted for score: UTA 59% · STL 41%
      Faceoffs · STL won33%off56%neu56%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      UTA0 / 6 · 1.60 xG
      STL0 / 7 · 1.60 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      UTA0 / 11 · 0.98 xG
      STL1 / 15 · 1.54 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      UTA0 / 47 · 0.56 xG
      STL0 / 25 · 0.36 xG

      UTA went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.60 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      UTA
      0 G · 3.14 xG · -3.1
      STL
      1 G · 3.50 xG · -2.5
      01234

      UTA finished -3.1 against expected, STL -2.5.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      UTA
      WRIST0/17
      SLAP0/8
      SNAP0/9
      BACKHAND0/1
      TIP IN0/2
      DEFLECTED0/2
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      OTHER0/25
      STL
      WRIST1/15
      SLAP0/6
      SNAP0/3
      BACKHAND0/7
      TIP IN0/1
      DEFLECTED0/0
      WRAP AROUND0/1
      OTHER0/14
      UTA
      STL
      Off the rush
      0 G on 21
      2.19 xG
      1 G on 24
      2.50 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 4
      0.54 xG
      0 G on 4
      0.71 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 0-for-17, STL 1-for-15.

      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 · 18/19 · .947
      +2.5
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/71.6+1.6
      Medium1/151.5+0.5
      Low0/250.4+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

      J. Hofer
      STL · 18/18 · 1.000
      +3.1
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/61.6+1.6
      Medium0/111.0+1.0
      Low0/470.6+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

      72 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      UTA
      39 shots
      0
      Final
      72 shots
      STL
      33 shots
      1
      UTA attackSTL attack
      UTA STL Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, STL 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
      P. Broberg
      #6 · D · STL
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:40 on ice · +1
      R. Thomas
      #18 · C · STL
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:27 on ice · +1
      D. Holloway
      #81 · L · STL
      1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 16:44 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Nov 29
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:15 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 2.5–2.5, Mammoth at 51% win probability—a genuine coin flip.

      Utah owns the underlying play. The Mammoth generate 52.0% expected goals at 5v5, command 53.0% Corsi—a territorial advantage that translates to time in the offensive zone. St. Louis sits at 49.0% xG and 48.0% Corsi, the inverse. By shot generation alone, Utah should separate. Yet St. Louis hasn't regressed; its PDO sits at 1.000, Utah's at 1.003—both neutral, both sustainable.

      The edge lives with Dylan Guenther. At 1.02 xG/60, he's Utah's engine, backed by 28 goals and 15 assists. Three high-danger chances have converted; his 16.8% shooting rate suggests room to run. Daniil But trails at 1.01 xG/60 and sits at 2 goals and 2 assists with a 5.6% conversion rate—suppressed, and worth monitoring for regression. St. Louis answers with Jimmy Snuggerud and Dylan Holloway. Snuggerud generates 0.86 xG/60 across 15 goals and 22 assists, landing 2 high-danger looks; Holloway runs 0.82 xG/60 and owns 13 goals and 24 assists off 1 high-danger goal. Both play inside Utah's possession envelope yet remain efficient relative to their chances.

      Defense breaks the tie. Maveric Lamoureux represents Utah's weak link; Utah's blue line sees 0% high-danger and rebound goals, a clean slate that won't hold. St. Louis's defensive vulnerabilities center on Snuggerud—an unusual liability for a player whose 22 assists versus 15 goals signal off-puck creation. If Utah targets him, the Mammoth control the matchup. If St. Louis uses him as a net-front presence and release valve, Utah's depth advantage vanishes.

      Utah's shot generation tips the scales, but Guenther's workload is unsustainable if But doesn't convert. St. Louis's complementary scoring through Snuggerud and Holloway offers insurance. This is the kind of game where the better team on the scoresheet loses because the other team doesn't need perfection.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      UTA 51%
      51%
      UTA
      Model favorite
      51%
      49%
      UTA50STL

      UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.5–2.5 STL; 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 →STL
      52.0%49.0%
      53.0%48.0%
      2.642.34
      2.392.40
      2.262.00
      1.992.12
      1.0031.000

      UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.000) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · No games yet
      UTA
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      STL
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      1.003
      UTA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.000
      STL 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 49.0%.
      • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Things to watch
      • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
      • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      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
      STL
      Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
      0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
      Dylan Holloway13G 24A
      0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page