Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · UTA at VAN

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Canucks

FinalFri, Dec 5

UTAUtah Hockey Club4 VANVancouver Canucks1

The verdict · coin flip

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

UTA 4 · VAN 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:06 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 beat Vancouver 4-1, but the underlying metrics suggested an even contest. The Canucks generated 4.18 expected goals to Utah's 3.93—a 52-48 split in their favor—yet finished with just one real goal.

Vancouver's issue wasn't volume or positioning. They controlled 65% of shot attempts (33-18) and took 9 high-danger chances to Utah's 7. The problem: they underperformed their xG by 3.18 goals—that entire three-goal scoreboard margin.

Utah compensated with precision. The Mammoth shot 0.085 expected goals per attempt versus Vancouver's 0.056 and capitalized ruthlessly: three of four goals came on the rush, from just 23 chances.

K. Vejmelka decided the game. The Utah goalie stopped 32 of 33 shots for a 0.970 save percentage, posting 3.18 goals saved above expected. K. Lankinen (14 saves, 0.824 SV%) didn't fail, but faced a quality-and-conversion gap he couldn't overcome.

M. Sergachev (1G, 1A in 23:53) and K. Stenlund (1G, 1A in 14:08) drove the scoring. J. Marino contributed with a wrist shot from a sharp angle at 19:24 and another goal in 22:54.

Vancouver dominated possession without translating it. Eight rebound opportunities, zero conversions. The Canucks weren't outworked or outmaneuvered—they simply couldn't finish, while Utah's goaltending and shot quality locked them out.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 5

UTA

VAN

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Canucks

Chances 3.9 – 4.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Mammoth took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

3.93

VAN

4.18

49% of the chances52%

The board read UTA 4, VAN 1. The chances read UTA 3.9, VAN 4.2.

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

Luck check

UTA

+0.1

goals above expected

UTA3.93 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN4.18 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Canucks left 3.2 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 16:00UTAM. SergachevPP1–0
P2 14:05UTAN. Schmaltz2–0
P3 04:17VANA. Bains2–1
P3 17:52UTAK. Stenlund3–1
P3 19:24UTAJ. MarinoEN4–1

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

Where the shots came from

UTA

34 shots

Final

84 shots

VAN

50 shots

UTA VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTAVAN

1 / 7

2.19 xG

High danger

1 / 9

2.14 xG

2 / 12

1.48 xG

Medium

0 / 11

1.21 xG

1 / 27

0.26 xG

Low

0 / 54

0.82 xG

High-danger looks: UTA 1 of 7, VAN 1 of 9.

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

In the net

A+

K. Vejmelka

+3.2

UTA · 32/33

B+

K. Lankinen

+0.9

VAN · 14/17

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Canucks

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 8–11

16:00UTAM. Sergachevpower play(C. Keller, D. Guenther)1–0

2ndshots 7–14

14:05UTAN. Schmaltz(M. Sergachev, J. Peterka)2–0

3rdshots 3–8

04:17VANA. Bains(A. Räty, J. Lekkerimäki)2–1
17:52UTAK. Stenlund(K. Yamamoto, J. McBain)3–1
19:24UTAJ. Marinoempty net(K. Stenlund)4–1

score reads UTA–VAN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.93

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.1

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.073

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

38.3%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.93Expected goals4.18

VAN 52% of the chance quality

18Shots on goal33

7High-danger chances9

46All attempts (Corsi)74

Adjusted for score: UTA 35% · VAN 65%

Faceoffs · VAN won83%off48%neu28%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA1 / 7 · 2.19 xG

VAN1 / 9 · 2.14 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA2 / 12 · 1.48 xG

VAN0 / 11 · 1.21 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA1 / 27 · 0.26 xG

VAN0 / 54 · 0.82 xG

VAN went 0-for-11 from medium danger on 1.21 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

4 G · 3.93 xG · +0.1

VAN

1 G · 4.18 xG · -3.2

012345

UTA finished +0.1 against expected, VAN -3.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

WRIST2/22

TIP IN1/3

SNAP0/5

SLAP0/1

BACKHAND1/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/12

VAN

WRIST0/30

TIP IN1/8

SNAP0/5

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/24

UTA

VAN

Off the rush

3 G on 23

2.20 xG

1 G on 31

2.58 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.44 xG

0 G on 8

1.23 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-22, VAN 0-for-30. 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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 32/33 · .970

+3.2

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/92.1+1.1

Medium0/111.2+1.2

Low0/540.8+0.8

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. Lankinen

VAN · 14/17 · .824

+0.9

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/72.2+1.2

Medium2/121.5-0.5

Low1/270.3-0.7

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

84 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

34 shots

Final

84 shots

VAN

50 shots

UTA VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, VAN 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

M. Sergachev

#98 · D · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:53 on ice · +1

K. Stenlund

#82 · C · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 14:08 on ice · +2

J. Marino

#6 · D · UTA

1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:54 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Dec 5

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:04 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 2.7–2.4 game with the Mammoth at 55% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. The Mammoth own the underlying play, but Vancouver's recent cold spell keeps this tight.

The Mammoth generate 52.0% 5v5 expected goals against the Canucks' 44.0%, and control territorial play at 53.0% Corsi. Expect the Mammoth to dictate possession and time of attack. But the Canucks' offense isn't broken—it's unlucky. Their 0.974 PDO suggests they're running cold and due for positive regression in goal-for and goal-against rates.

The Mammoth's attack is built around volume. Dylan Guenther leads at 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes and has converted at 16.8%, posting 28 goals and 15 assists with 3 high-danger chances. Daniil But occupies similar territory at 1.01 xG/60 but has been snake-bitten at 5.6% shooting despite 1 high-danger goal in just 2 goals and 2 assists. The Canucks counter with Filip Chytil at 1.03 xG/60, the highest on this sheet, but have generated only 3 goals and 0 assists with a 15.0% conversion rate. Drew O'Connor brings a different profile at 0.85 xG/60 with 13 goals, 11 assists, and a more measured 11.8% shooting—volume over efficiency.

K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back—watch for a backup start or a tired starter. That's Vancouver's best path to an upset.

Defensively, both teams show vulnerabilities. The Mammoth's Maveric Lamoureux is exposed, while the Canucks' Victor Mancini draws attention. Neither team has generated high-danger or rebound goals—both running at 0% in those categories, a quirk that suggests either elite defensive play or small sample size volatility.

The model sees the Mammoth's edge in play-driving and shooting volume as the decider. But a cold PDO is temporary, and a tired goaltender on the second night is a wild card. If the Canucks get enough puck possession, this flips.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 55%

55%

UTA

Model favorite

55%

45%

UTA50VAN

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 2.7–2.4 VAN; 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 →VAN

52.0%44.0%

53.0%46.0%

2.642.22

2.392.81

2.261.60

1.992.56

1.0030.974

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.974) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

UTA

3-5-2

+1 GD · 1d rest

VAN

2-6-2

-10 GD · 2d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.974

VAN 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 44.0%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
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.
The Canucks are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

back-to-back1.000 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.

VAN

Expected in goal

K. Lankinen

2 days rest.903 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 GSAx this season

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

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page