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

Mammoth shut out the Ducks, 7-0

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 7 · ANA 0
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:49 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's 7–0 shutout looked like a blowout, but expected goals split 3.12–3.42 in their favor—a margin too narrow to predict a seven-goal result. Variance, not dominance, built this scoreline.

K. Vejmelka was the difference. He stopped 27 of 27 shots and outperformed his expected save percentage by 3.12 goals. The Ducks' goaltending collapsed in kind: V. Buteyets and V. Husso combined to give up 3.58 more goals than expected.

The Ducks generated quality chances and couldn't convert. They finished 0 of 5 on high-danger opportunities, underperforming their xG of 3.12 by the full amount. The Mammoth, conversely, scored 4 goals from low-danger positions—the chances goalies are supposed to stop. They also converted 6 goals on 37 rush attempts, turning a possession disadvantage (44% shot attempts) into clinical execution.

The gap between what the underlying metrics predicted and the final score was a perfect storm: elite Mammoth finishing meeting the Ducks' inability to capitalize.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 3
UTA
7
ANA
0

Mammoth shut out the Ducks, 7-0

Chances 3.4 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Mammoth took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.42
ANA
3.12
52% of the chances48%

The board read UTA 7, ANA 0. The chances read UTA 3.4, ANA 3.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+3.6
goals above expected
UTA3.42 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
ANA3.12 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth scored 3.6 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 05:59UTAL. Crouse1–0
  2. P1 10:30UTAD. Guenther2–0
  3. P2 05:43UTAI. Cole3–0
  4. P2 14:34UTAJ. Peterka4–0
  5. P3 01:41UTAL. O'Brien5–0
  6. P3 10:06UTAJ. PeterkaPP6–0
  7. P3 12:52UTAC. Keller7–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
50 shots
7
Final
94 shots
ANA
44 shots
0
UTA attackANA attack
UTA ANA Goal
50
shots · 7 in
44
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTAANA
2 / 2
0.43 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.19 xG
1 / 21
2.27 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.25 xG
4 / 40
0.71 xG
Low
0 / 54
0.68 xG

The Ducks went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
K. Vejmelka
+3.1
UTA · 27/27
B
V. Buteyets
+0.4
ANA · 10/13
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth shut out the Ducks, 7-0

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 8–6
  1. 05:59UTAL. Crouse(M. Carcone, J. McBain)1–0
  2. 10:30UTAD. Guenther(I. Cole)2–0
2ndshots 13–16
  1. 05:43UTAI. Cole(M. Lamoureux, J. Peterka)3–0
  2. 14:34UTAJ. Peterka(N. Schmaltz, C. Keller)4–0
3rdshots 13–5
  1. 01:41UTAL. O'Brien(J. McBain, S. Durzi)5–0
  2. 10:06UTAJ. Peterkapower play(D. Guenther, C. Keller)6–0
  3. 12:52UTAC. Keller(J. Peterka, N. Schmaltz)7–0

score reads UTA–ANA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.42
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.111
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
47.4%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.42Expected goals3.12
UTA 52% of the chance quality
34Shots on goal27
2High-danger chances5
63All attempts (Corsi)70
Adjusted for score: UTA 41% · ANA 59%
Faceoffs · ANA won63%off75%neu26%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA2 / 2 · 0.43 xG
ANA0 / 5 · 1.19 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA1 / 21 · 2.27 xG
ANA0 / 11 · 1.25 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA4 / 40 · 0.71 xG
ANA0 / 54 · 0.68 xG

UTA went 4-for-40 from low danger on 0.71 expected goals — 3.3 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
7 G · 3.42 xG · +3.6
ANA
0 G · 3.12 xG · -3.1
012345678

UTA finished +3.6 against expected, ANA -3.1.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
SNAP5/32
WRIST0/2
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND2/5
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/13
ANA
SNAP0/7
WRIST0/17
SLAP0/8
TIP IN0/6
BACKHAND0/3
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/26
UTA
ANA
Off the rush
6 G on 37
2.92 xG
0 G on 23
1.59 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.08 xG
0 G on 3
0.57 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: UTA went 5-for-32, ANA 0-for-7. UTA scored 6 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
K. Vejmelka
UTA · 27/27 · 1.000
+3.1
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.2+1.2
Medium0/111.3+1.3
Low0/540.7+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

V. Buteyets
ANA · 10/13 · .769
+0.4
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/20.4-1.6
Medium1/212.3+1.3
Low4/400.7-3.3

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

V. Husso
ANA · 17/21 · .810
-0.6
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/20.4-1.6
Medium1/212.3+1.3
Low4/400.7-3.3

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

94 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
50 shots
7
Final
94 shots
ANA
44 shots
0
UTA attackANA attack
UTA ANA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, ANA 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
J. Peterka
#77 · R · UTA
2 G · 2 A · 6 SOG · 15:12 on ice · +3
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:23 on ice · +3
I. Cole
#28 · D · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:09 on ice · +5
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Dec 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:58 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 projects a 2.6–2.7 goal game with Anaheim at 52% to win. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Utah is underwater: -7 goal differential over their last 10 games. The underlying 5v5 numbers don't explain why. The Mammoth own 52.0% expected goals share to Anaheim's 52.0%—statistically indistinguishable. Corsi% is equally tight: UTA 53.0%, ANA 52.0%. Anaheim is running cold (0.981 PDO) and due for positive regression. Utah sits slightly elevated at 1.003, suggesting possible regression risk the other way. Both teams are close enough that possession talent barely tilts the ice.

The goaltending situation is the variable that breaks this pick'em. V. Husso takes Utah's net on a back-to-back; V. Vanecek does the same for Anaheim. Either could start a backup or battle fatigue. That's your margin.

Up front, Utah leans on Dylan Guenther (28G, 15A, 1.02 xG/60, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting), whose dangerous finishes on moderate volume set him apart. Daniil But (2G, 2A, 1.01 xG/60, 1 HD goal, 5.6% shooting) generates at an elite rate but hasn't found the net yet—a regression candidate in waiting. Anaheim counters with Beckett Sennecke (20G, 19A, 1.03 xG/60, 8 HD goals, 13.5% shooting) and Cutter Gauthier (25G, 16A, 0.99 xG/60, 2 HD goals, 12.9% shooting). Sennecke's eight high-danger goals signal dangerous finishes; Gauthier brings more even-strength consistency. Neither team has a clear talent advantage.

Utah's defensive vulnerability centers on Maveric Lamoureux. Anaheim's weak link is Mason McTavish. If either gets exposed, you have your goal margin. Both offenses show normalized shot placement (0% high-danger and 0% rebound rates), meaning this game is decided by which defense breaks first.

At 52%, the market is saying Anaheim wins this as a coin flip with maybe a light thumb on the Ducks' side. That's the whole game.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

ANA 52%
52%
ANA
Model favorite
48%
52%
UTA50ANA

ANA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.7 ANA; 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 →ANA
52.0%52.0%
53.0%52.0%
2.642.80
2.392.59
2.262.09
1.992.32
1.0030.981

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.981) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
UTA
2-5-3
-7 GD · 1d rest
ANA
5-5-0
-2 GD · 1d rest
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.981
ANA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • V. Husso is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • V. Vanecek is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Mammoth are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Ducks' PDO is 0.981 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
UTA
Expected in goal
V. Vanecek
back-to-back.857 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.

ANA
Expected in goal
V. Husso
back-to-back.955 last start
Backup Lukas Dostal · -2.9 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
ANA
Beckett Sennecke20G 19A
1.03 xG/60 · 8 HD · 13.5% sh
Cutter Gauthier25G 16A
0.99 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next