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

Mammoth run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 5 · PIT 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:24 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

Pittsburgh's elite finishing kept this close—they scored four goals on just 1.37 expected goals, outperforming prediction by 2.63 goals. But Utah's dominance prevailed: they controlled 72% of 5v5 expected goals (3.58–1.37) and won 5-4 in overtime.

Utah's volume was overwhelming. They generated 36 attempts to Pittsburgh's 16, creating one high-danger chance to zero. S. Murashov's 0.861 save percentage on 36 shots and K. Vejmelka's 0.750 on 16 reflected the workload disparity. Dylan Guenther's wrist shot from the top of the circles at 00:42 of overtime decided it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Dec 14
UTA
5
PIT
4

Mammoth run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.6 – 1.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.58
PIT
1.37
72% of the chances28%

The board read UTA 5, PIT 4. The chances read UTA 3.6, PIT 1.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+1.4
goals above expected
UTA3.58 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
PIT1.37 expected · 4 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
  1. P1 00:48PITJ. Brazeau0–1
  2. P1 15:21PITB. Rust0–2
  3. P2 05:40PITB. Kindel0–3
  4. P3 01:07UTAN. Schmidt1–3
  5. P3 01:22UTAM. Carcone2–3
  6. P3 05:35UTAS. Durzi3–3
  7. P3 07:06UTAM. CarconePP4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
59 shots
5
Final
81 shots
PIT
22 shots
4
UTA attackPIT attack
UTA PIT Goal
59
shots · 5 in
22
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTAPIT
0 / 1
0.31 xG
High danger
0 / 0
0.00 xG
2 / 20
2.29 xG
Medium
3 / 9
0.96 xG
3 / 56
0.99 xG
Low
1 / 21
0.42 xG

High-danger looks: UTA 0 of 1, PIT 0 of 0.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D-
S. Murashov
−1.4
PIT · 31/36
F
K. Vejmelka
−2.6
UTA · 12/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth run the Penguins off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 7–6
  1. 00:48PITJ. Brazeau(B. Kindel, R. McGroarty)0–1
  2. 15:21PITB. Rust(R. Rakell)0–2
2ndshots 11–4
  1. 05:40PITB. Kindel(R. Shea, K. Letang)0–3
3rdshots 17–6
  1. 01:07UTAN. Schmidt(N. Schmaltz, J. Peterka)1–3
  2. 01:22UTAM. Carcone2–3
  3. 05:35UTAS. Durzi(K. Yamamoto, M. Sergachev)3–3
  4. 07:06UTAM. Carconepower play(B. Hayton, D. But)4–3
  5. 14:06PITJ. Brazeau(E. Karlsson, B. Kindel)4–4
OTshots 1–0
  1. 00:42UTAD. Guenther(J. Marino)5–4

score reads UTA–PIT

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.58
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.4
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
0.932
UTA puck luck
Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them
72.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.58Expected goals1.37
UTA 72% of the chance quality
36Shots on goal16
1High-danger chances0
77All attempts (Corsi)30
Adjusted for score: UTA 75% · PIT 25%
Faceoffs · PIT won46%off47%neu56%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 1 · 0.31 xG
PIT0 / 0 · 0.00 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA2 / 20 · 2.29 xG
PIT3 / 9 · 0.96 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA3 / 56 · 0.99 xG
PIT1 / 21 · 0.42 xG

PIT went 3-for-9 from medium danger on 0.96 expected goals — 2.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
5 G · 3.58 xG · +1.4
PIT
4 G · 1.37 xG · +2.6
0123456

UTA finished +1.4 against expected, PIT +2.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST5/44
TIP IN0/7
SLAP0/4
BACKHAND0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/1
SNAP0/0
OTHER0/18
PIT
WRIST1/14
TIP IN1/3
SLAP0/2
BACKHAND2/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/0
SNAP0/1
OTHER0/8
UTA
PIT
Off the rush
4 G on 38
2.37 xG
4 G on 16
1.13 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4
0.45 xG
0 G on 1
0.06 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 5-for-44, PIT 1-for-14. 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
K. Vejmelka
UTA · 12/16 · .750
-2.6
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
Medium3/91.0-2.0
Low1/210.4-0.6

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

S. Murashov
PIT · 31/36 · .861
-1.4
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.3+0.3
Medium2/202.3+0.3
Low3/561.0-2.0

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

81 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
59 shots
5
Final
81 shots
PIT
22 shots
4
UTA attackPIT attack
UTA PIT Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, PIT 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
B. Kindel
#81 · C · PIT
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:23 on ice · +2
J. Brazeau
#16 · R · PIT
2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 14:12 on ice · +1
M. Carcone
#53 · L · UTA
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 12:20 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Dec 14
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:21 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 2.6 goals for each team, with Pittsburgh at 51% to win—as close to a pick'em as the numbers offer. This game has no strong conviction either way.

Recent momentum tilts toward the Penguins, who are 4-2-4 in their last ten. But Utah's season-long underlying numbers cut deeper: they own 53.0% Corsi and 52.0% expected goals share at 5v5, suggesting territory and shot volume they've earned. Pittsburgh counters with 51.0% xG and 50.0% Corsi that bends closer to even.

A. Silovs starts for Utah on a back-to-back—fatigue matters in net. K. Vejmelka does the same for Pittsburgh, which means both teams face the same fraying resource. Neither side gets a rest advantage here.

Dylan Guenther is Utah's offensive engine: 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes, 28 goals, 15 assists, and a 16.8% shooting rate anchored by three high-danger chances. Daniil But generates 1.01 xG/60 but has fired only 2 goals on 2 assists with a 5.6% shooting rate—the talent is there, the finish is missing.

Pittsburgh's Filip Hallander is likely out, recalled from an AHL conditioning loan pending further evaluation. That removes a 1.28 xG/60 weapon. Rickard Rakell absorbs that loss with 1.01 xG/60, 13 goals, 13 assists, and 3 high-danger goals at 12.1% shooting. He's been consistent; Guenther just has more ceiling.

Both offenses struggle to convert high-danger chances into goals—neither team has scored on rebounds or high-danger opportunities at rates you'd expect from their shot quality. Utah's defensive weak spot is Maveric Lamoureux. Pittsburgh's is Caleb Jones. In a game this tight, those weak links will see pressure.

The PDO edge to Pittsburgh (1.012 vs 1.003) hints at small-sample noise playing into their numbers rather than deep talent, but it's noise that's won them games lately.

This isn't a blowout waiting to happen. Utah should control pace and territory. Pittsburgh should survive on the back of recent execution. The Penguins' narrow win probability reflects that—they're favored, but not by much. Take the points and expect a grind.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 51%
51%
PIT
Model favorite
49%
51%
UTA50PIT

PIT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.6 PIT; 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 →PIT
52.0%51.0%
53.0%50.0%
2.642.66
2.392.55
2.262.45
1.992.12
1.0031.012

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.012) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
UTA
3-7-0
+1 GD · 1d rest
PIT
4-2-4
-3 GD · 1d rest
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.012
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • A. Silovs 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 Penguins are the hotter team by points pace (4-2-4 in their last 10).
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
UTA
Expected in goal
K. Vejmelka
back-to-back.919 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.

PIT
Expected in goal
A. Silovs
back-to-back.806 last start
Backup Stuart Skinner · +8.3 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
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% sh
Keep going

Where to next