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

Mammoth hold off the Kraken

The verdict · earned

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

SEA 3 · UTA 5
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:09 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

P. Grubauer saved 2.69 goals above expected and Seattle still lost 3-5. The Kraken underperformed their xG by 1.54 goals while generating more high-danger chances (10 to 8)—a cruel combination of efficiency gaps. Utah's underlying control (5.69–4.54 xG, 56–44%) held up, but the margin reflected how close elite play made this game.

Utah's rush attack broke through: four goals on 34 rush chances, with K. Vejmelka stopping 90% of Seattle's high-danger shots (1.54 above expected). The turning point came early in the third when Ben Meyers's wrist shot from the doorstep (19:17, P3) gave Utah breathing room.

M. Marchment scored twice for Seattle (17:37), enough to keep the Kraken close but not close enough. Utah's balance decided it. N. Schmaltz (1G, 2A, 19:55) orchestrated the top line with precision; K. Stenlund (3A, 16:56) moved the play without the goal.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 12
SEA
3
UTA
5

Mammoth hold off the Kraken

Chances 4.5 – 5.7Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SEA
4.54
UTA
5.69
44% of the chances56%

The board read SEA 3, UTA 5. The chances read SEA 4.5, UTA 5.7.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
−0.7
goals above expected
UTA5.69 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
SEA4.54 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Kraken left 1.5 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 03:35SEAM. Marchment1–0
  2. P2 08:09UTAN. Schmaltz1–1
  3. P2 13:24UTAK. Yamamoto1–2
  4. P3 07:50SEAM. Marchment2–2
  5. P3 12:55UTAD. GuentherPP2–3
  6. P3 17:49UTAJ. PeterkaEN2–4
  7. P3 18:58UTAL. CrouseEN2–5
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SEA
49 shots
3
Final
98 shots
UTA
49 shots
5
SEA attackUTA attack
SEA UTA Goal
49
shots · 3 in
49
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SEAUTA
1 / 10
2.17 xG
High danger
2 / 8
3.25 xG
1 / 16
1.61 xG
Medium
2 / 15
1.74 xG
1 / 42
0.75 xG
Low
1 / 56
0.70 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
P. Grubauer
+2.7
SEA · 28/31
A
K. Vejmelka
+1.5
UTA · 34/37
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth hold off the Kraken

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 9–12no goals
    2ndshots 16–13
    1. 03:35SEAM. Marchment(F. Gaudreau, C. Stephenson)1–0
    2. 08:09UTAN. Schmaltz1–1
    3. 13:24UTAK. Yamamoto(L. O'Brien, K. Stenlund)1–2
    3rdshots 12–8
    1. 07:50SEAM. Marchment(R. Lindgren, B. Montour)2–2
    2. 12:55UTAD. Guentherpower play(N. Schmaltz, M. Sergachev)2–3
    3. 17:49UTAJ. Peterkaempty net(K. Stenlund)2–4
    4. 18:58UTAL. Crouseempty net(N. Schmaltz, K. Stenlund)2–5
    5. 19:17SEAB. Meyers(T. Kartye, R. Winterton)3–5

    score reads SEA–UTA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.69
    UTA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.7
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.019
    UTA puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    53.7%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.54Expected goals5.69
    UTA 56% of the chance quality
    37Shots on goal33
    10High-danger chances8
    68All attempts (Corsi)79
    Adjusted for score: SEA 48% · UTA 53%
    Faceoffs · UTA won36%off50%neu58%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    SEA1 / 10 · 2.17 xG
    UTA2 / 8 · 3.25 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    SEA1 / 16 · 1.61 xG
    UTA2 / 15 · 1.74 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    SEA1 / 42 · 0.75 xG
    UTA1 / 56 · 0.70 xG

    UTA went 2-for-8 from high danger on 3.25 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    SEA
    3 G · 4.54 xG · -1.5
    UTA
    5 G · 5.69 xG · -0.7
    0123456

    SEA finished -1.5 against expected, UTA -0.7.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    SEA
    SNAP0/12
    WRIST1/13
    SLAP1/12
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND1/2
    DEFLECTED0/2
    POKE0/1
    BAT0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/19
    UTA
    SNAP2/23
    WRIST1/9
    SLAP1/7
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND1/5
    DEFLECTED0/0
    POKE0/0
    BAT0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/30
    SEA
    UTA
    Off the rush
    3 G on 36
    3.27 xG
    4 G on 34
    4.20 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 3
    0.35 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.13 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: SEA went 0-for-12, UTA 2-for-23. UTA scored 4 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
    P. Grubauer
    SEA · 28/31 · .903
    +2.7
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/83.3+1.3
    Medium2/151.7-0.3
    Low1/560.7-0.3

    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 · 34/37 · .919
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/102.2+1.2
    Medium1/161.6+0.6
    Low1/420.8-0.3

    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

    98 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    SEA
    49 shots
    3
    Final
    98 shots
    UTA
    49 shots
    5
    SEA attackUTA attack
    SEA UTA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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
    N. Schmaltz
    #8 · C · UTA
    1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:55 on ice
    K. Stenlund
    #82 · C · UTA
    0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 16:56 on ice · +1
    M. Marchment
    #27 · L · SEA
    2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 17:37 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Dec 12
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:06 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's model advantage is overwhelming: a 58% win probability in a projected 2.3–2.7 game tells you everything about how the underlying numbers tip this matchup. The Mammoth don't just have the edge—they control it.

    Start with the foundational numbers. Utah owns the territorial play at 53.0% Corsi, meaning they'll generate more shots from better ice. That translates to expected goal share: 52.0% xG against Seattle's 46.0%. The Kraken are fighting upstream here. Their recent form doesn't help—they're -14 in goal differential over their last 10 games, a hole that compounds when the model expects to be dominated in shot volume and quality.

    Goaltending adds a wrinkle. Both K. Vejmelka and J. Daccord are on back-to-backs, which could mean either backup appearances or tired starters. The fatigue question matters more for Seattle, which is already outgunned in the underlying metrics. Utah's shot volume advantage gets worse if J. Daccord isn't sharp.

    On the individual level, Dylan Guenther is the engine. He's generating 1.02 xG per 60 minutes and has scored 28 goals with a 16.8% shooting rate—he's efficient and hungry. Daniil But sits close behind at 1.01 xG/60, adding a secondary threat that Seattle's defense has to account for.

    Seattle's answer lies with Shane Wright, a 0.77 xG/60 producer with 8 goals and 10 assists. He's posted 4 high-danger chances and maintains a 10.4% shooting rate, the kind of consistency that keeps a struggling team in games. Berkly Catton (0.68 xG/60, 8.8% shot) is the secondary option, though he's more inconsistent.

    The matchup math gets harder for Seattle when you add the context: Utah doesn't just hold the Corsi advantage, they hold it decisively. The Mammoth will press for territory and will get it. The Kraken's weak defensive link—Chandler Stephenson—figures to see heavy scrutiny in a game where Utah controls play. Meanwhile, Utah's Maveric Lamoureux is the corresponding liability, but it matters less when Utah's offense is built to compensate.

    PDO sits nearly neutral for both teams (Utah 1.003, Seattle 1.011), meaning lucky finishes aren't the story. The advantage is structural. Utah's model favor reflects a team that should dictate pace and position and a Seattle squad that's been trending wrong. The Kraken need sharp goaltending and opportunistic scoring to steal this one—and with both goalies potentially fatigued, that's a tall ask.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    UTA 58%
    58%
    UTA
    Model favorite
    42%
    58%
    SEA50UTA

    UTA by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score SEA 2.3–2.7 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
    SEA← edge
    edge →UTA
    46.0%52.0%
    45.0%53.0%
    2.132.64
    2.512.39
    1.872.26
    1.951.99
    1.0111.003

    UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 1.003) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    SEA
    3-6-1
    -14 GD · 1d rest
    UTA
    3-7-0
    +3 GD · 1d rest
    1.011
    SEA 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 46.0%.
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
    • 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.
    • J. Daccord is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Kraken are underwater at -14 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    SEA
    Expected in goal
    J. Daccord
    back-to-back.923 last start
    Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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.

    UTA
    Expected in goal
    K. Vejmelka
    back-to-back.889 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
    SEA
    Shane Wright8G 10A
    0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
    Berkly Catton6G 8A
    0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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