Motion-blurred skater in a San Jose Sharks sweater
Breakdown · UTA at SJS

Sharks pull away from the Mammoth

The verdict · coin flip

The Sharks won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

UTA 3 · SJS 6
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:35 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 underlying numbers said this game should be close. Expected goals split 3.70–3.50 in favor of San Jose; high-danger chances went 6–6. The Sharks won 6–3, which meant they outperformed their xG by 2.30 goals while Utah underperformed — a gap that reflects conversion, not variance alone.

San Jose's advantage was efficiency where it mattered most. Utah had more shot attempts overall (34 on goal to 30), but the Sharks were more efficient off the rush: 3 goals on 26 chances versus Utah's 3 goals on 29. Both teams crashed the net for rebounds with equal intensity. San Jose created 5 rebound opportunities and converted zero; Utah created 4 and converted zero. The offensive pattern was identical. The scorer was not.

Y. Askarov stopped 31 of 34 shots (0.912 save percentage)—exactly the standard required to win. K. Vejmelka allowed 1.89 more goals than expected in 9 shots, which explains why Utah fell short despite the xG closeness.

The turning point: Lawson Crouse's wrist shot from the high slot at 6:30 in the third period.

Depth scoring decided the margin. T. Toffoli posted 2 goals and 2 assists in 15:17, W. Smith had 2 goals and an assist in 19:03, and M. Celebrini added 3 assists in 18:14.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 1
UTA
3
SJS
6

Sharks pull away from the Mammoth

Chances 3.5 – 3.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Sharks took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.50
SJS
3.70
49% of the chances51%

The board read UTA 3, SJS 6. The chances read UTA 3.5, SJS 3.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
SJS
+2.3
goals above expected
SJS3.70 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA3.50 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Sharks scored 2.3 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 04:41SJST. Toffoli0–1
  2. P1 07:58SJSP. RegendaPP0–2
  3. P1 09:06UTAL. Crouse1–2
  4. P1 12:59SJST. Toffoli1–3
  5. P1 16:00UTAJ. Peterka2–3
  6. P2 06:16SJSW. Smith2–4
  7. P2 07:25SJSA. Gaudette2–5
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
43 shots
3
Final
90 shots
SJS
47 shots
6
UTA attackSJS attack
UTA SJS Goal
43
shots · 3 in
47
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTASJS
1 / 6
1.46 xG
High danger
1 / 6
1.41 xG
2 / 12
1.34 xG
Medium
4 / 13
1.62 xG
0 / 33
0.70 xG
Low
1 / 48
0.67 xG

High-danger looks: UTA 1 of 6, SJS 1 of 6.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
V. Vanecek
+0.7
UTA · 18/21
B
K. Vejmelka
+0.7
UTA · 6/9
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Sharks 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 12–13
  1. 04:41SJST. Toffoli(M. Celebrini, W. Smith)0–1
  2. 07:58SJSP. Regendapower play(P. Kurashev, D. Orlov)0–2
  3. 09:06UTAL. Crouse(M. Carcone)1–2
  4. 12:59SJST. Toffoli(M. Celebrini)1–3
  5. 16:00UTAJ. Peterka(N. Schmidt, C. Keller)2–3
2ndshots 17–15
  1. 06:16SJSW. Smith(M. Celebrini, T. Toffoli)2–4
  2. 07:25SJSA. Gaudette(W. Eklund)2–5
  3. 09:09SJSW. Smith(T. Toffoli)2–6
3rdshots 5–2
  1. 06:30UTAL. Crouseshorthanded(M. Sergachev)3–6

score reads UTA–SJS

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.70
SJS chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.031
SJS puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
56.8%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.50Expected goals3.70
SJS 51% of the chance quality
34Shots on goal30
6High-danger chances6
51All attempts (Corsi)67
Adjusted for score: UTA 49% · SJS 51%
Faceoffs · SJS won36%off33%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA1 / 6 · 1.46 xG
SJS1 / 6 · 1.41 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA2 / 12 · 1.34 xG
SJS4 / 13 · 1.62 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA0 / 33 · 0.70 xG
SJS1 / 48 · 0.67 xG

SJS went 4-for-13 from medium danger on 1.62 expected goals — 2.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
3 G · 3.50 xG · -0.5
SJS
6 G · 3.70 xG · +2.3
01234567

UTA finished -0.5 against expected, SJS +2.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST2/24
SLAP1/6
BACKHAND0/5
TIP IN0/2
SNAP0/6
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/8
SJS
WRIST4/26
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND1/5
TIP IN1/7
SNAP0/2
WRAP AROUND0/2
OTHER0/20
UTA
SJS
Off the rush
3 G on 29
2.31 xG
3 G on 26
2.47 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.70 xG
0 G on 5
0.48 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-24, SJS 4-for-26. UTA 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 · 18/21 · .857
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.4+0.4
Medium4/131.6-2.4
Low1/480.7-0.3

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

K. Vejmelka
UTA · 6/9 · .667
+0.7
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.4+0.4
Medium4/131.6-2.4
Low1/480.7-0.3

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

Y. Askarov
SJS · 31/34 · .912
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/61.5+0.5
Medium2/121.3-0.7
Low0/330.7+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

90 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
43 shots
3
Final
90 shots
SJS
47 shots
6
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
T. Toffoli
#73 · C · SJS
2 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 15:17 on ice · +3
W. Smith
#2 · C · SJS
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 19:03 on ice · +2
M. Celebrini
#71 · C · SJS
0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 18:14 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Dec 1
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:33 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 is the better team and the model confirms it — barely. The projection puts Utah at 2.6 goals to San Jose's 2.5, a 52% Mammoth win probability that qualifies as a true coin flip. Scratch any confidence about direction; both teams have equal claim to the result.

Utah's advantage shows in the underlying play. They control 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 and 53.0% of Corsis, which suggests territorial dominance — San Jose gets hemmed in more often than not. That territorial tilt matters when you need a result, but San Jose's performance over their last 10 games tells a different story: they're minus-7 in goal differential, which is underwater enough to keep this close.

Both goaltenders are on back-to-backs, so expect either backup deployments or starters running on fumes. Monitor whether A. Nedeljkovic and K. Vejmelka play or get swapped out.

Utah's threat comes primarily from Dylan Guenther, who carries 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes and has compiled 28 goals and 15 assists with a 16.8% shooting rate. His 3 high-danger goals suggest he finds the best spots. Daniil But projects at 1.01 xG/60 but has only 2 goals on 2 assists — his 5.6% shooting rate is a red flag for variance catching up.

San Jose's Pavol Regenda poses the sharper threat: 1.10 xG/60 and 5 goals with a 16.1% shooting rate tells you he's both getting prime opportunities and finishing them. He's marked likely inactive for this matchup, which changes the calculus entirely. Without him, San Jose loses their cleanest offensive engine. Igor Chernyshov, at 0.91 xG/60 with 6 goals and 8 assists on a 15.0% rate, becomes the remaining danger.

The model isn't wrong to call it even. Utah should win the shot volume and the expected-goals count by small margins, but San Jose's recent collapse wasn't severe enough to break them — just enough to make them beatable. With Regenda potentially unavailable, Utah's structural edge tips the scales, but not enough to clear a spread.

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
3-4-3
-1 GD · 1d rest
SJS
5-5-0
-7 GD · 1d 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.
  • A. Nedeljkovic is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Sharks are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
UTA
Expected in goal
K. Vejmelka
back-to-back.947 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.

SJS
Expected in goal
A. Nedeljkovic
back-to-back.833 last start
Backup Yaroslav Askarov · -18.9 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
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