Motion-blurred skater in a Florida Panthers sweater

Breakdown · FLA at UTA

Panthers hold off the Mammoth

FinalWed, Dec 10

FLAFlorida Panthers4 UTAUtah Hockey Club3

The verdict · earned

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

FLA 4 · UTA 3

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:56 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

Florida won 4-3, but the underlying story was a Panthers blowout waiting to happen. They controlled 60% of 5v5 expected goals (5.17 to 3.47), yet the Mammoth stayed within a goal only because K. Vejmelka saved 1.17 goals above expected—an exceptional save rate that compressed Florida's advantage into a tight final score.

The shot metrics reinforce the disparity. Utah held 46% of shot attempts (30 to 36), yet Florida still had to work to pull away. Vejmelka's 0.889 save percentage (32 of 36) took what should have been a convincing Panthers victory and made it competitive. When a goalie outperforms his expected save percentage by that margin, it overwrites the game's underlying structure.

Florida created better chances at every level. High-danger opportunities went 8 to 6, and they scored three goals on 36 rush chances while Utah managed two on 26. Both teams generated eight rebound opportunities with one conversion each, but the Panthers' volume advantage told the story—they found scoring chances through multiple avenues.

S. Bennett (FLA) led with 2 goals and 1 assist in 17:52. J. Marino (UTA) recorded 2 assists in 22:02, while D. Guenther (UTA) scored twice in 16:32. S. Bobrovsky (FLA) made 27 saves on 30 shots (0.900 SV%), but Vejmelka's night stole the spotlight.

Utah came remarkably close to stealing a win their chances didn't warrant. Vejmelka's overperformance kept the Mammoth competitive, but Florida's superior shot quality and volume proved decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 10

FLA

UTA

Panthers hold off the Mammoth

Chances 5.2 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Panthers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

FLA

5.17

UTA

3.47

60% of the chances40%

The board read FLA 4, UTA 3. The chances read FLA 5.2, UTA 3.5.

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

Luck check

FLA

−1.2

goals above expected

FLA5.17 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

UTA3.47 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 11:23UTAD. Guenther0–1
P1 19:17FLAC. Verhaeghe1–1
P2 01:40FLAS. Bennett2–1
P2 03:24FLAS. Bennett3–1
P2 03:37UTAD. Guenther3–2
P2 14:37UTAJ. McBain3–3
P3 19:08FLAA. Lundell4–3

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

Where the shots came from

FLA

65 shots

Final

108 shots

UTA

43 shots

FLA UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

FLAUTA

1 / 8

2.14 xG

High danger

1 / 6

1.52 xG

3 / 16

1.73 xG

Medium

2 / 11

1.38 xG

0 / 57

1.29 xG

Low

0 / 43

0.57 xG

High-danger looks: FLA 1 of 8, UTA 1 of 6.

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

In the net

B+

K. Vejmelka

+1.2

UTA · 32/36

S. Bobrovsky

+0.5

FLA · 27/30

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Panthers hold off 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 10–13

11:23UTAD. Guenther(J. Marino)0–1
19:17FLAC. Verhaeghe(A. Ekblad, S. Bennett)1–1

2ndshots 7–13

01:40FLAS. Bennett(E. Rodrigues, N. Mikkola)2–1
03:24FLAS. Bennett(C. Verhaeghe)3–1
03:37UTAD. Guenther(L. Crouse, J. Marino)3–2
14:37UTAJ. McBain(S. Durzi, I. Cole)3–3

3rdshots 19–4

19:08FLAA. Lundell(E. Luostarinen, S. Reinhart)4–3

score reads FLA–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.17

FLA chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.2

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

0.999

FLA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

57.4%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

5.17Expected goals3.47

FLA 60% of the chance quality

36Shots on goal30

8High-danger chances6

81All attempts (Corsi)60

Adjusted for score: FLA 57% · UTA 43%

Faceoffs · UTA won39%off57%neu55%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

FLA1 / 8 · 2.14 xG

UTA1 / 6 · 1.52 xG

Medium dangermid-range

FLA3 / 16 · 1.73 xG

UTA2 / 11 · 1.38 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

FLA0 / 57 · 1.29 xG

UTA0 / 43 · 0.57 xG

FLA went 0-for-57 from low danger on 1.29 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

FLA

4 G · 5.17 xG · -1.2

UTA

3 G · 3.47 xG · -0.5

0123456

FLA finished -1.2 against expected, UTA -0.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

FLA

SNAP2/31

WRIST2/13

SLAP0/8

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/4

DEFLECTED0/2

BETWEEN LEGS0/1

OTHER0/16

UTA

SNAP1/23

WRIST0/6

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND2/4

DEFLECTED0/1

BETWEEN LEGS0/0

OTHER0/17

FLA

UTA

Off the rush

3 G on 36

2.28 xG

2 G on 26

2.38 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 8

1.45 xG

1 G on 8

0.98 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: FLA went 2-for-31, UTA 1-for-23. FLA 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

S. Bobrovsky

FLA · 27/30 · .900

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.5+0.5

Medium2/111.4-0.6

Low0/430.6+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 · 32/36 · .889

+1.2

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/82.1+1.1

Medium3/161.7-1.3

Low0/571.3+1.3

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

108 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

FLA

65 shots

Final

108 shots

UTA

43 shots

FLA UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — FLA 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

S. Bennett

#9 · C · FLA

2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 17:52 on ice · +1

J. Marino

#6 · D · UTA

0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 22:02 on ice · +1

D. Guenther

#11 · R · UTA

2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 16:32 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Dec 10

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 7:46 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 comes in at 55% win probability, a spread so tight the pregame models offer no edge. The Mammoth project to a 2.4-2.7 goal range—essentially even.

On underlying play, Utah owns the advantage. The Mammoth carry a 52.0% expected goals share against Florida's 49.0%, a real if modest edge. Their Corsi% sits at 53.0% versus the Panthers' 52.0%, and Utah's PDO of 1.003 suggests they've benefited from slightly better finishing luck than Florida's 0.989.

Florida has a rest advantage worth noting: Utah arrives on one day off, Florida on three. That edge narrows when K. Vejmelka plays on a back-to-back, a situation that could pull Utah toward a backup start or extract a performance cost from their starter.

The matchup hinges on two scoring engines. Sam Bennett powers Florida at 0.97 expected goals per sixty with 18 goals and 19 assists, including six from high-danger areas and a 13.1% shooting rate. Brad Marchand carries 0.93 xG/60 with 17 goals, 9 assists, and three high-danger markers, though his 19.5% shooting percentage suggests unsustainable finish—and marks him as Florida's defensive liability if Utah can locate him.

Utah counters with Dylan Guenther at 1.02 xG/60, 28 goals, 15 assists, and three high-danger markers. Daniil But registers at 1.01 xG/60 despite just 2 goals and 2 assists and a 5.6% shooting rate, yet his single high-danger goal signals latent danger.

Neither team converts high-danger chances at an elevated rate. Utah needs to neutralize Bennett; Florida must contain Guenther. Utah's marginal edge in possession, Florida's rest advantage, and Vejmelka's durability represent the deciding factors. This is about as close to a genuine toss-up as the preseason numbers project.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 55%

55%

UTA

Model favorite

45%

55%

FLA50UTA

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

FLA← edge

edge →UTA

49.0%52.0%

52.0%53.0%

2.482.64

2.562.39

1.982.26

2.211.99

0.9891.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.989 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

FLA

5-4-1

+2 GD · 3d rest

UTA

4-6-0

+5 GD · 1d rest

0.989

FLA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

UTA 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%.

Things to watch

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Panthers have 2 more days of rest.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

FLA

Expected in goal

D. Tarasov

3 days rest.952 last start

Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

back-to-back.885 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

FLA

Sam Bennett18G 19A

0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh

Brad Marchand17G 9A

0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% 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